Add Records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that certain fields cannot be registered (e.g., LOOKUP copies, STATUS, CALC). However, it omits details about error handling, authorization requirements, atomicity, or response behavior. The output schema likely covers return format, but the description lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise—two sentences and a parenthetical list. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides a crucial prerequisite, and the note lists exceptions. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the complexity (2 parameters, including a potentially complex records array), the description covers the key points: action, prerequisite, and unsupported fields. The schema already documents parameter details and constraints (e.g., maxItems 100), and an output schema exists. It misses batch behavior or error context, but overall is adequate.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of using get-form-fields is meta-advice, not parameter semantics. Hence, no improvement over baseline.

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 adds multiple records to a kintone app, using the specific verb 'Add' and resource 'records'. It distinguishes from siblings like kintone-update-records and kintone-delete-records by focusing on creation. The mention of unsupported fields further clarifies scope.

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 explicitly advises using kintone-get-form-fields first to discover field codes and formats, and lists field types that cannot be registered. This gives clear prerequisite and limitation guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update or delete, but the action is distinct enough.

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