add_quote

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Allow' implies a mutating permission grant, but the description doesn't say what is changed, whether it is reversible, what approval flow the approved_by field triggers, or what happens if an existing quote conflicts. It does hint that a functional-necessity justification is required, which is modest value.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the mode restriction first, so it is compact. However, the terseness comes at the cost of intelligibility: 'literal' and 'gate' are undefined jargon rather than efficient shorthand.

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?

This is a likely mutation tool with three required parameters, zero schema coverage, and no annotations; the output schema covers return values but nothing else. The description omits prerequisites, approver semantics, mode definitions, and the effect of the operation, so it is not sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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% and all three parameters are required with bare titles. The description roughly maps to compat_reason ('the reason it is functionally necessary') and maybe 'text' ('one literal'), but approved_by is completely unaddressed, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 says 'allow one literal through the gate,' which is metaphor rather than a concrete verb+resource. An agent cannot tell what artifact is modified (a rule? a spec? a compatibility exception?) or what the effect on the system is, so the purpose is only vaguely inferable from the name and sibling set.

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?

'Standard mode only' implies a conditional context, but it never defines what standard mode is or what the alternative is. No sibling is named, and with tools like propose_claim, compile_spec, and check_rules present, an agent gets no signal for choosing add_quote over them.

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