Add a competitor

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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the persistent side effect ('from then on its mentions and rankings are tracked') and the retry/idempotency handling via requestId. It does not mention permission requirements, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the discovery alternative and the idempotency note. No filler; each clause carries information. Slightly dense but well ordered.

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 6-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, persistent effect, a related sibling, and retry semantics. Gaps remain around permissions and duplicate-handling, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is only 17% (only requestId is documented inline), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for websiteDomains ('its website domains'), brandNames ('the names it is mentioned by'), and requestId usage, but leaves organizationId, projectId, and name to the schema alone. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (add a competitor), the target scope (to a project), the inputs it carries (website domains, mention names), and the downstream effect (mentions and rankings tracked beside the brand's). This distinguishes it cleanly from discover_brands, update_competitor, and delete_competitor without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative 'discover_brands can propose competitors', telling the agent where competitor candidates come from versus creating one directly. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or prerequisite statement, but the create-vs-discover distinction is clearly drawn.

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