clip_add_flag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states 'Add a flag'. It does not disclose whether existing flags are preserved, whether adding the same color overwrites, what side effects occur, or what is returned. The mutation implication is present but shallow.

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 with no filler. Every word earns its place: verb, object, resource, and qualifier. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity.

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 with complete schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose. It lacks behavioral nuances, but the simplicity of the operation and the schema's completeness make it mostly 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it restates that a clip and a color are involved, while the schema already describes clip_name and color with examples. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 a specific action ('Add a flag') on a specific resource ('a clip') with a qualifier ('of the given color'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like clip_get_flags and clip_clear_flags by verb and resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with item_add_flag or explain the concept of a flag.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clip_set_color, item_add_flag, or clip_clear_flags. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling list.

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