ds_add_avu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is a mutation tool that never states required permissions, whether an existing AVU with the same attribute is overwritten or rejected, or any iRODS-specific constraints. Only the target taxonomy is conveyed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the purpose and valid targets come first. Efficient, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is being created and where, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, it omits the behavioral context (permissions, overwrite semantics, auth) an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the enum for target_type and the unit default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating the target types, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('AVU'), spells out the acronym, and enumerates the valid targets (file/data-object, directory/collection, resource, user). It is clearly the singular add operation, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ds_add_avus (batch) tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like ds_add_avus, ds_delete_avu, ds_list_avus, ds_search_files_by_avu, and the mesa_avu_* tools, the description should route the agent (e.g., single vs. bulk add), but it offers nothing.

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