add_individual

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates that this is a write operation and emphasizes that changes are not auto-saved, which is key for the agent to understand post-use steps.

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 concise with two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function and providing a critical usage caveat. There is no extraneous information.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral context (save requirement). However, it could mention validation or error cases, but it is still fairly complete for a straightforward add operation.

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 does not add meaning beyond the input schema for the parameters. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema already adequately describes individual_name, class_name, and properties.

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's purpose: adding a new individual to the ontology and specifying its class. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_class (which adds a class) and add_object_property_assertion (which adds a property assertion).

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 provides critical usage guidance: modifications are not automatically saved and require a call to save_ontology. This is a clear behavioral note but does not explicitly list when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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