add_trial

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Add' without disclosing any behavioral traits. It does not mention the effect on the study, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. The bare description does little to inform the agent beyond the name.

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 extremely brief with one sentence. While concise, it lacks necessary details for a complex tool. It is not structured or front-loaded with key information beyond the basic action.

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?

Given the complexity of the input object and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, side effects, or required preconditions. For a tool with such rich schema, more context is needed.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters. The input schema has a complex object 'TrialToAdd' with multiple properties, and schema description coverage is 0%. An agent cannot infer what 'params', 'distributions', 'values', etc., represent from the tool's description alone.

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 the action and resource: 'Add a trial to the study.' It is specific but does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'add_trials' which likely adds multiple trials. The singular 'trial' implies a single addition, but it's not explicit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_trials' or 'tell'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as the need for an existing study, and does not indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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