Add competitor

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discovery is asynchronous with a polling contract, re-adding the same URL is non-destructive and returns the existing record (consistent with idempotentHint=true), and the 409 response carries an active_competitor_id for concurrent discovery. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before firing a mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action then the required follow-up, then edge cases (re-add, 409), then the sibling pointer. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

Covers the full lifecycle for a 3-param mutation with no output schema: what is created, that it is async, how to poll, and the failure mode. The only gap is the shape of a successful response (e.g. the new competitor id), which the agent must infer from get_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%, so the schema already documents url, workspace_id, and monitor_types, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the URL semantic ('homepage URL') and implies the default page-type set, but never names monitor_types or notes that the discovery list can be narrowed, so it adds only marginal meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource+key: 'Add a competitor to a workspace by homepage URL', then scopes what happens next (discovery of pricing, docs, blog, changelog). It is clearly distinguished from siblings create_monitor and get_competitor, so an agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up tool ('poll get_competitor until discovery_status is completed') and the alternative for a different intent ('To watch one specific page, use create_monitor'). It also states the re-add case and the 409 conflict condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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