add_place_match

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the validation trap, rename's non-identity role, refusal under different identity, and the force override. These are critical behavioral details not present in the annotations.

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?

Every sentence adds operational value, but some implementation-specific references (labgrid 26.0, design §11.12) are niche and slightly lengthen the text. The structure is clear: purpose, pattern, rename, refusal.

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 description covers all key parameters, preconditions, validation, and unusual behavior. Given the four-parameter schema with no descriptions and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for reliable invocation.

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 zero schema descriptions, the description carries the burden. It thoroughly explains pattern format, rename semantics, and force behavior. Only 'place' is not deeply explained, but its meaning as an existing place identifier is clear from context.

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 opens with 'Add a resource match to an existing place,' a specific verb+resource that clearly states the action. The pattern and rename details further distinguish it from sibling tools like add_place and add_place_alias.

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 makes the use case clear and provides conditions like force behavior and pattern arity, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or say when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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