cavalry_add_dynamic_attribute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention side effects, return values, permission requirements, or reversibility of adding a dynamic attribute. The type list is useful but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral context for a mutating operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by a concise list of types. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with fully described parameters, the description covers the core purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks guidance on when to use it and what behavioral side effects to expect, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 100%, with all three parameters having descriptions. The description only repeats the allowed types already listed in the schema, adding no extra parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 'Add a dynamic attribute to a layer' with a specific verb and resource. It also provides an example context ('e.g., on a JavaScript Utility') that helps distinguish this from a generic set attribute operation. This is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like cavalry_set_attribute.

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 gives an example use case ('e.g., on a JavaScript Utility') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cavalry_set_attribute. There is no when-not guidance or mention of alternative tools, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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