uci_add

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for disclosing side effects. It only states the action without mentioning that changes are likely uncommitted until uci_commit, whether it overwrites existing sections, or what the return value/outcome is. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, tightly worded sentence that communicates the essential purpose with no filler. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the verb 'Add'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return behavior or side effects, but it does not. Given the rich sibling context (uci_commit, uci_revert), it fails to place the tool within the UCI workflow or mention that changes are staged. This makes it incomplete for an agent to understand the full impact of calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond naming them ('config' and 'type'). The description's reference to 'given type' and 'config' aligns with the schema but does not enrich parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add'), the resource ('anonymous UCI section'), and the required context ('of a given type to a config'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uci_add_list or uci_set by specifying 'anonymous' section addition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies the tool's purpose, and the sibling context makes it evident when to use it (creating a new unnamed section vs. modifying existing entries). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a named section is needed instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.