add_alternate_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so safety and repeatability are partly covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — 'The person's primary name is left unchanged' — but says nothing about duplicate alternate names, permissions, or what a repeated call does despite idempotentHint being false.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by use cases and the key side-effect. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a non-destructive mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations on safety, the description covers purpose, scope, use cases and the primary-name guarantee. Only edge cases (duplicates, repeat calls, error behavior) are unaddressed.

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% across all 7 parameters, so the schema already explains given, surname, nickname, name_type, prefixes/suffixes and the person handle. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Add') and resource ('alternate (non-primary) name to a person'), and explicitly carves out the non-primary scope so it is distinguishable from update_person or add_person, which handle the primary name.

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 second line enumerates concrete when-to-use cases (maiden/married names, aliases, anglicized forms, nicknames-of-record), giving clear context. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one (e.g. correcting the primary name).

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