add_department

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates the action (create) without mentioning side effects, permissions required, error conditions (e.g., duplicate name), idempotency, or any other behavioral traits.

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, using a single sentence to state the purpose followed by a clear list of arguments. Every word is necessary, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide information about the tool's return value (e.g., whether it returns the new department ID or a success status). It also lacks context on error handling or what happens when required fields are invalid. The tool is simple, but these gaps hinder an agent's ability to handle the response correctly.

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?

The description adds a brief explanation for each parameter: name is department name, manager_id is user ID of manager, max_off is max off at once with 0 indicating no limit. While this provides some clarity beyond the schema (which had 0% coverage), the explanations are minimal and do not elaborate on constraints (e.g., manager_id must be an existing user) or edge cases.

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 'Create a new department.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing and distinguishes the tool from siblings like edit_department, delete_department, and list_departments.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edit_department for modifications, get_department for retrieval). The description only states what it does, with no context on prerequisites, restrictions, or when not to use it.

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