common-add-item-version-by-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a safe operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's reversible, or any side effects (like affecting children when 'recurse' is true). The description lacks behavioral context beyond the minimal functional statement.

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 states the core purpose without fluff. However, it could be more front-loaded with key behavioral information given the complexity of the tool, but it's appropriately concise for its length.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover the tool's behavior, error conditions, return values, or important details like how 'recurse' affects children or the implications of 'ifExist' choices. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying language versioning. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'ifExist' and 'ifNoSourceVersion' affect behavior) or provide examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Creates a version') and resource ('item'), specifying it's for adding a language version based on an existing one. It distinguishes from siblings like 'common-remove-item-version-by-id' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'common-add-item-version-by-path' beyond the ID vs path parameter difference.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'common-add-item-version-by-path' or other versioning tools. The description implies it's for language version creation but doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to choose this over other methods.

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