add_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals automatic No assignment and the restriction on certain kinds. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as permissions, mutability, or side effects on existing objects, so transparency is only partial.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and provides essential constraints without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and only a partial description, the tool is incomplete for correct invocation. Parameter semantics are missing entirely, and there is no guidance on fields/handle/description. The output schema exists, so return values are not required, but the description fails to give enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it does not. It only indirectly hints at 'kind' by naming zone/scenario; 'handle', 'name', 'fields', and 'description' are left unexplained. This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 ('create'), the resource ('top-level object'), and the specific kinds ('zone' or 'scenario'). It also notes auto-numbering, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling add_* tools by specifying the object type.

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 for creating top-level objects and includes a constraint on which kinds cannot be created (when schema is not removed from working configs). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like add_device or add_plan, so an agent must infer when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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