load_item_to_return

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the action itself, omitting side effects (e.g., overwriting existing effects), error conditions, return values, or any permission requirements.

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 focused sentence plus a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the essentials but misses behavioral details like what happens on success/failure, whether existing effects are replaced, and any constraints on the return track. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more disclosure would be expected.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters: return_index is defined as the target return track index, and uri is explained as coming from browse_path or search_browser. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it could specify indexing behavior (e.g., zero-based).

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 action ('Load... onto a return track') with clear resource (browser item/effect) and destination (return track), differentiating it from siblings like load_item_to_track. It also explains the URI source, adding useful context.

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?

Usage context is implied ('by URI' and 'obtained from browse_path or search_browser'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It gives a prerequisite but not a comparative guideline.

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