middleware_add

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutating tool. It never says whether existing middleware configuration is overwritten, what permissions or open-project state are required, that a `timeout` of 300s exists for a potentially long operation, or what a failure looks like. Naming the underlying CLI commands is the only behavioral hint.

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 compact sentence with the two operating modes front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the dense CLI syntax in parentheses is less immediately parseable than plain prose would be.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this tool needs more than one sentence. Missing are the relationship between the instance branch and the custom branch (which parameters are required in each), the long-running nature implied by `timeout`, and any statement about the resulting state change.

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 every one of the 9 parameters is already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description does add a small amount by grouping root/mode/config/template as the custom-registration branch, but it omits any mention of `custom`, `timeout`, or `project_id` semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Integrate a middleware instance') and distinguishes two branches: activating an existing mode vs registering a custom X-CUBE middleware with root/mode/config/template paths. An agent can tell what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling mode_set, which appears to cover overlapping ground.

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?

Usage is only implied through the parenthetical CLI syntax: `set mode` for an instance, `add mw` for custom registration. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over mode_set/mode_list or what preconditions (open project, existing middleware) must hold.

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