manage_bar

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

The description adds context beyond the destructiveHint: true annotation by explicitly stating 'WARNING: delete is permanent and cannot be undone.' It also lists failure conditions, providing comprehensive behavioral insight.

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 well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, Actions, Returns, FAILS WHEN, WARNING). It is slightly verbose but efficiently communicates all necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and having 19 parameters, the description explains return values ('Returns the created/updated bar object... or confirmation on delete') and failure conditions. This is complete for a complex CRUD tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter usage per action (e.g., create requires roadmap_id, lane_id, name; update/delete need bar_id) and referencing get_roadmap_legends for legend_id.

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 'Create, update, or delete a bar on a roadmap,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bar, get_bar_children, and others that serve different read or management purposes.

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 a 'USE WHEN' section listing typical use cases (e.g., 'Add feature', 'Update dates') and outlines required parameters per action. It could explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for read-only operations, use get_bar), but overall guidance is strong.

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