add-tokens-with-template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses core behaviors: automatic uppercase/underscore naming, {NAME} placeholder support, reliance on 'existing bulk add infrastructure', and a clear return summary including per-rule status and modified grammar. It lacks specifics on failure handling but is adequate for an additive 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 longer than minimal, but every section (when-to-use, examples, features, returns) earns its place. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, uses headers for scannability, and avoids filler. Slightly verbose but well-structured.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the what, when, and returns sufficiently. It illustrates usage with multiple examples and lists return values. It doesn't address edge cases like error handling or file I/O interactions, but given schema coverage and the additive nature, it's reasonably complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the {NAME} placeholder convention, providing concrete examples for base_names and preceding_tokens, and noting default pattern behavior. It doesn't detail every parameter but compensates for the core ones.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource phrase: 'Add multiple similar lexer tokens at once using template-based generation.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add-rule or generate-tokens-from-pattern by emphasizing batch template-based creation.

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 'When to use' section provides explicit contexts (e.g., 'Add multiple tokens that follow a similar pattern', 'Generate tokens for command sequences'). However, it does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it's clear but without exclusions.

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