Add People

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which says little for a write tool. The description compensates with a genuine transactional guarantee — 'All entries are added, or none are if any link is invalid' — which is exactly the kind of failure-mode behavior an agent needs before committing a batch. It does not cover permissions or duplicate handling, but the atomicity disclosure is substantive.

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?

Four short sentences, zero redundancy, with the core capability and the single-person shortcut front-loaded. Every sentence adds distinct information — capability, single-entry case, linking model, atomicity.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the two things that matter for correctness: how cross-entry linking resolves and what happens on failure. Missing only the edge cases an agent might hit — duplicate detection, whether existing ids must be pre-validated, and permission requirements.

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 50%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it explains that batch entries link by 'ref (or name)' and to existing people by id, which clarifies the semantics of the parents/partners/siblings arrays beyond their terse schema notes. The remaining gaps are minor fields (sex, dates, notes) whose types are self-evident from the schema.

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 and resource ('Add one or many people') plus the relationships it creates (parent, partner, sibling links), and makes the batch-vs-single distinction explicit. It does not name the sibling it is not (update_people, merge_people), so the agent must infer from the verb that this is insertion rather than mutation of existing records.

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?

'Use a one-entry list to add a single person' gives concrete guidance on parameterizing for the single-person case, and the atomicity sentence implies the precondition that all links must be valid. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over update_people, merge_people, or find_people, nor on whether existing people should be looked up first.

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