add_derive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., that both requirements must exist), or what happens if the relationship already exists. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation, front-loading the core action. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 description is minimal and does not explain the direction of the relationship (source vs. derived), the meaning of DeriveReqt, or any operational details. Given the existence of many sibling relationship tools and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It does not mention source_req_id or derived_req_id at all, nor explain which is which or their roles in the relationship. The schema titles provide minimal hints but are not sufficient, especially without any descriptive context.

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 creates a DeriveReqt relationship between two requirements, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_satisfy or add_trace, but does not explicitly differentiate itself. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the semantics of the relationship (e.g., derivation) or provide conditions for use. An agent would have to infer that this is for representing derived requirements, which is not explicitly stated.

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