add_pet_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement ('Requires being logged in'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe what happens after adding (e.g., success/failure responses, whether the pet becomes immediately visible), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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—just two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a critical prerequisite. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 this is a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., a pet ID, confirmation message), error handling, or behavioral details like whether duplicate pets are allowed. The authentication note is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('Add a new pet') and resource ('to your Rover account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_pets' (read) and 'update_pet_profile' (modify), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more differentiated.

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 one clear usage guideline: 'Requires being logged in.' This gives essential context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_pet_profile' or mention any exclusions (e.g., when a pet already exists). The guidance is implied but incomplete.

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