add_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a record but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling (e.g., for invalid app IDs or record data), or what happens on success (e.g., returns a record ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying 'single record' (distinguishing from bulk operations) and 'kintone app' (providing context). There's no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with nested objects in parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for invocation is lacking.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters ('app' as an integer ID and 'record' as an object with field codes). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the 'app' parameter refers to a kintone app. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate with examples or formatting details.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a single record to a kintone app'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_records' (plural) and 'update_record' by specifying single-record creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'upload_file' or 'add_comment', leaving some ambiguity about scope boundaries.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing app), compare it to 'add_records' for bulk operations, or indicate scenarios where 'update_record' might be more appropriate. Without this context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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