add_competitor

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

Idempotency is disclosed, and 409 error with active_competitor_id is mentioned when another discovery is running. However, side effects (e.g., triggering a discovery) and authorization needs are not described. With no annotations, full burden is on description.

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?

Two concise sentences covering the core action, idempotency, and a key error condition. No wasted words.

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?

Lacks success response details and full behavioral context. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the minimum but does not explain the full result of adding a competitor.

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% for all three parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only relating 'homepage URL' to the url parameter. It does not clarify when 'monitor_types' should be used.

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 explicitly says 'Add a competitor by homepage URL' and notes idempotency on duplicate URLs. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_competitor' and 'list_competitors'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_monitor). No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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