add_peer

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

The description discloses the purpose and mentions fields like peer_url, entity_types, and shared_secret for webhook verification, but does not cover important behaviors such as idempotency, authentication requirements, or conflict resolution details beyond naming the conflict_strategy parameter.

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, focused sentence (20 words) with front-loaded purpose. No wasted 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 11 parameters, 8 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits return values, error behavior, parameter interactions (e.g., auth_method and shared_secret), and conflict handling details, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

With only 27% schema coverage, the description helps by explaining entity_types as an allowlist and shared_secret's role, but fails to describe many required parameters like peer_id, direction, sync_scope, auth_method, and conflict_strategy. The added value is positive but incomplete.

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 registers a Neotoma peer for bidirectional sync, and lists key fields. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'sync_peer' or 'remove_peer', missing explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where other tools should be used instead.

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