add_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes layout behavior ('magazine' places images beside text, 'grid' stacks images below) and notes that 'image_prompt' is 'REQUIRED for magazine layout,' which adds useful operational context. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides critical layout guidance, and the third reinforces usage context. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for a 5.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers layout semantics and usage context well, but as a mutation tool, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the importance of the 'layout' parameter and providing semantic context: it explains that 'magazine' is 'BEST for articles, blog posts, and content pages' and details how layouts affect image placement. This goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions, justifying a 4.

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: 'Add a features/content section.' It specifies the resource (features/content section) and the action (add), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'add_contact' or 'add_faq' beyond the general 'features/content' focus, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 clear context for when to use the 'magazine' layout ('for content with images,' 'best for articles, blog posts, and content pages') and contrasts it with 'grid' layout. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use 'bento' or when to choose this tool over other 'add_' siblings, but the layout guidance is strong enough for a 4.

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