add_attribute

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the description's main added value is the internal behavior that the right class (SrcAttribute vs Attribute) is chosen automatically from object_type. It still omits anything about permissions, duplicate attribute names, or failure modes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the only non-obvious behavioral rule. No filler.

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 4-required-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the action and the object_type→class rule adequately. Gaps around duplicate attributes and error conditions are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds one genuinely useful semantic link (object_type drives class selection) but no format or syntax details, so baseline 3 fits.

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 ('typed key/value attribute to an object'), which is clear and actionable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent mutation siblings such as update_object_fields or cite_object.

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: 'to an object' and the class-selection note give the agent enough to know it is an attribute-writing tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative (e.g. update_object_fields) and no note on prerequisites like target existence or duplicate handling.

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