add_hero

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 mentions automatic text color adaptation and default gradient backgrounds, which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a mutation (likely, given 'add'), permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists layout options and key features (automatic contrast, default gradient). Every part earns its place with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (8 parameters, mutation likely), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers layout types and some behavioral traits but misses mutation implications, error handling, and output details. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool of this nature.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions layout types and automatic contrast adjustment, but these are already implied or covered in the schema's enum and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'adds a premium hero section' with specific layout options, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_contact' or 'add_features' by focusing on hero sections, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar layout tools (none exist in the sibling list).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_cta' or 'add_features' is provided. The description mentions layout types but doesn't indicate scenarios where one layout would be preferred over another or prerequisites for usage.

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