add_place

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

Annotations already declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the parent must already exist and is never auto-created, and the implicit-event route yields untyped, unparented places that seed duplicate hierarchies. It does not discuss permissions or what the call returns, but the added failure-mode context is valuable.

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?

Front-loads the action, then justifies the alternative-route warning in a single flowing sentence. Slightly verbose in the duplicate-hierarchy explanation, but no sentence is pure 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 7-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies exactly the missing piece an agent needs: why to call this instead of the implicit route. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 parameter is already documented in the schema, including the title/parent semantics. The description only reinforces the type and parent concept generically, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb ('Create') plus resource ('a place') with the two defining attributes (type, parent) named up front. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the event-naming route that creates places as a side effect, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: use this rather than letting a place appear as a side effect of naming one in an event. It does not mention the sibling update_place or when to prefer editing an existing place over adding one, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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