kwfinder_add_list_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action but omits important details: does it append to or replace existing keywords? What happens if the list does not exist? Are there rate limits or authentication requirements? This lack of side-effect disclosure is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence. It communicates the core function without any filler, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a relatively simple mutation purpose. However, the description fails to provide essential context such as whether the operation is idempotent, whether it expects keywords in a specific format, or how errors are surfaced. For a tool with no safety annotations, this is under-specified and leaves the agent guessing about edge cases.

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 75% because the 'keywords' parameter lacks a description. The tool description implicitly explains that 'keywords' holds the keywords to add, but it does not clarify the relationship between the 'keywords' array and the generic 'body' or 'query' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add keywords to a KWFinder list' uses a specific verb ('add') and clearly identifies the resource (keywords to a KWFinder list). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like kwfinder_delete_list_keywords and kwfinder_create_list, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kwfinder_keyword_imports or kwfinder_update_list. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., list must exist), behavior when keywords are duplicate, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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