add_faq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the action (add), the acceptable content scope, and the required answer format ('Write it as speech, not a document'). However, it does not mention what happens if the question already exists or whether the tool updates or appends, leaving a minor behavioral gap.

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 and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence, then usage triggers, scope constraints, parameter guidance, and a practical example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers all essentials: purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, and content constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

The schema provides only titles and no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. The Args section defines each parameter precisely: 'question' as a caller would ask it, 'answer' as exact speech-ready wording, and 'keywords' as comma-separated synonyms/misspellings with a concrete example. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 an entry to the clinic FAQ' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling answer_faq by being the write counterpart, and further clarifies the scope with 'Only for clinic logistics... Never add medical guidance.' This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when staff tell you something the FAQ does not cover yet, or after answer_faq returns match: "none"'. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Never add medical guidance; clinical questions must keep routing to the doctor.' Both positive and negative guidance are provided, which is exemplary.

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