add_url

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds a useful scope constraint about which object types carry URL lists, but that constraint is largely mirrored in the object_type schema field, and it does not explain what happens on duplicate calls or invalid URLs. With annotations covering the main behavioral signals, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the alternative routing follows immediately, making the description easy to scan.

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 write tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description provides the essential routing and scope information, while annotations carry the safety profile. It stops short of warning about duplicate creation (idempotentHint=false) or update scenarios, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Add a web URL") and immediately bounds the scope to three object types, which an agent can use to distinguish it from sibling tools like add_attribute or update_url. It also explicitly names where the same data belongs for other object types, so the tool's identity is unambiguous.

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?

It states when to use the tool (person, place, or repository) and when not to (sources/citations), naming add_attribute as the correct alternative for that case. The only minor gap is not mentioning update_url for existing links, but the core routing decision is fully supplied.

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