add_protocol_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It clarifies that the step is appended to the end, but does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid protocol_id), idempotency, or whether it returns an updated step list. Based on the lack of annotations, the description provides only basic behavioral insight.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively conveys the purpose without extraneous information, earning a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, nested objects in input schema, and no output schema shown but context indicates one exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, it does not elaborate on how the nested 'ProtocolStepInput' is handled, but the input schema provides that detail. The description is sufficient for a straightforward append operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the 'step' parameter's structure or constraints, which are already detailed in the input schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), identifies the resource ('protocol'), clarifies the action ('to the end of the steps list'), and includes the identifier ('by its protocol ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_protocol_steps' (replace) and 'delete_protocol_step' (remove).

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mentioning of when not to use it or comparisons to sibling tools like 'set_protocol_steps' for bulk operations. The usage context is implied but not clearly outlined.

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