add_instrument

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool creates a placeholder descriptive field (a side effect), explains the REDCap constraint that requires at least one field per instrument, and notes the default display label behavior. It also states the return value. This is meaningful behavioral information beyond simple 'creates an instrument.'

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, an explanatory paragraph, a note, and an Args/Returns section. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, the side effect of creating a placeholder, the parameter format, and the return value. The note about label modification adds relevant operational context. No critical gaps are apparent.

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 input schema only lists form_name as a string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by defining form_name as 'Internal name for the instrument (lowercase, underscores, no spaces),' which adds crucial format constraints and semantics that are absent from the 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?

The description begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Add a new instrument (form) to the project.' It distinguishes this from the sibling tool add_field by explaining that a placeholder field is added and can later be replaced with real fields via add_field. This makes the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 context on when to use this tool — when adding a new instrument — and relates it to the subsequent use of add_field. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X' but clearly implies the workflow and notes that the display label can only be changed in the UI, which is practical guidance for users.

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