Добавить ВН в список

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the notable two-step behavior (auto-search by name, then add), which is helpful. However, it omits other important details such as authentication requirements, failure modes (e.g., what happens if the VN is not found or already in the list), and whether the action is reversible or idempotent.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds useful behavioral context (automatic search) without any wordiness. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, and there are no annotations to fill gaps. The description covers the main action and behavior, but it does not mention what the tool returns, potential errors, or the need for authentication. Given the simplicity of the operation, the description is partially complete but leaves out transaction-level details that an agent would need for robust handling.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with meaningful descriptions (vnName supports Russian names or IDs, status has enum with Russian translations, vote and notes are clearly explained). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: adding a visual novel to the user's VNDB list with a specified status. It also mentions the automatic search behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_vn_from_list or update_vn_status. The verb 'adds' and the resource 'visual novel to the list' are specific and 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?

The description implies the use case (adding a new VN to the list), and the auto-search behavior provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like update_vn_status or search_vn, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., authentication).

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