add_place

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds a non-obvious guarantee that no ownership check occurs and a brand-new name won't collide with existing acquisitions. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, though the term 'acquisition' is ambiguous.

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 concise at two short sentences and front-loads the primary action. The second sentence is cryptic, but overall it is efficient and free of fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core operation and a behavioral note, but lacks context about what a 'place' is, any prerequisites, or consequences of duplicate names. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has one required `name` field with 0% description coverage. The description's 'by name' merely restates the parameter, and the collision note provides a weak guarantee about name behavior but no concrete constraints, format, or uniqueness rules. It does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema description.

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 a new place by name,' giving a specific verb and resource. This unambiguously differentiates add_place from sibling tools like acquire_place or add_place_alias, even though alternatives are not explicitly named.

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 implies usage: it creates a new place, contrasting with acquire_place which likely targets existing places. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or exclusion of alternatives, and the ownership-check note is a behavioral caveat rather than a usage recommendation.

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