add_dataset_child

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation creates a relationship, mentions the return format ('JSON with status, parent_rid, child_rid'), and provides an example. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but for a simple relationship-creation tool the disclosure is adequate.

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?

The description is compact and logically structured with sections for summary, common pattern, arguments, returns, and example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

It covers the purpose, parameters, return value, and an example, making it sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool. It omits edge cases or error conditions, but the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation keep it reasonably complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly defines each parameter: 'parent_rid: RID of the parent dataset' and 'child_rid: RID of the child dataset to nest.' It also gives a concrete example mapping RID values to roles.

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 clearly states the action: 'Add a dataset as a nested child of another dataset' and 'Creates a parent-child relationship between datasets.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dataset_parents or add_dataset_members.

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 provides a concrete common pattern ('Complete' parent contains 'Training'/'Testing' children) that makes the intended use case clear. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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