catalog_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the fetch→signature-verify→assemble pipeline, fail-closed behavior on drift, and the output location advisors/<id>. It omits permission/auth requirements and the shape of the response, but the failure semantics are unusually transparent.

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-loaded with the core action, then the confirmation rule, then the pipeline in a compact arrow-chained sentence. Dense but every clause carries information; the telegraphic style costs a little readability.

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 multi-step mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the workflow, the safety gate, and the artifact destination. The main gap is the return value and any error/auth surface an agent would want before invoking.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that ref is a catalog reference or url and explicitly ties license=public-domain to non-PD hosts, adding real meaning to the optional parameter, but leaves ref's exact format and the accepted license values unexplained.

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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: assembling a PD-advisor LOCALLY from a catalog or url. It differentiates from the catalog_* siblings by naming catalog_preview as a prerequisite and by emphasizing local assembly, though it does not explicitly contrast with build_advisor or federation_assemble.

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 gives an explicit precondition (Rule 0 user confirmation) and names catalog_preview as the tool to run first, which routes the agent correctly. It stops short of stating when NOT to use the tool or fully enumerating alternatives.

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