OpenEvidence Collection Add Article

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

With no annotations, the description only discloses idempotency. It fails to mention permissions, error behavior, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 very concise, with one main sentence plus a note on idempotency. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity; a tool with two required UUID parameters would benefit from slightly more context.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or error conditions, which are critical for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, yet the description adds no information about the parameters beyond their names. It does not explain what collection_id or article_id represent or how to obtain them, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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 a chat (article) to a collection', which effectively conveys the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools by the specific verb 'add', but does not explicitly differentiate from other collection manipulation tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oe_collections_bulk_apply or other collection tools. The description only mentions idempotency, which is a behavioral trait, not usage context.

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