add_to_master

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

With no annotations, the description thoroughly explains behavioral traits: dated_copy creates a copy and leaves master untouched, name conflicts are silently skipped and reported in skipped_existing, folder_prefix defaults to 'ЛКП (', master path falls back to environment variable. It also clarifies that today must be provided by the client and not hardcoded.

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 concise (three lines plus bullet points) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the structure uses bullet points for clarity without 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 the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers core behavior (conflict handling, dated_copy, folder_prefix) but lacks explanation of the return value (skipped_existing report structure), error cases, and the new_guids parameter. It is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for full context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of src (source of points), today (date format DD-MM-YYYY, client-provided), master (optional, defaults to env), folder_prefix (target folder prefix), and dated_copy (create copy). However, it does not explain new_guids, and src description is minimal. Partial coverage reduces effectiveness.

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's purpose: 'Добавить точки из src в мастер по дефолтным правилам (рекомендуемый сценарий)'. It uses a specific verb ('добавить'), names the resource (src, master), and distinguishes itself as the recommended scenario among siblings like merge_viewpoints and reconcile_by_name.

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 implies this is the recommended scenario but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., merge_viewpoints, reconcile_by_name). No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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