services_resources_add_additional_resources

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the agent knows this is a consequential write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the change is billing-affecting, whether it is reversible, whether the service must be running, or what happens to resources not listed in the map. The endpoint line is the only extra content and is not behavioral context.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the action, with no padding — good density. But the second line is a bare REST path that duplicates the name rather than adding information an agent can act on, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested object body, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent calling this has no statement of side effects, cost implications, required service state, or result shape, all of which it must know before committing a billing-affecting change.

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 reported as 0% at the top level, and the description compensates for none of it: it never explains that 'id' is the service id, nor the 'body' envelope containing a payment method plus a slug-to-amount map. The nested schema carries some of that (method, additionalResources keyed by slug), but the description itself adds zero parameter meaning.

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?

States a verb ('Add') and a resource ('additional resources to service') plus the REST endpoint, so the general intent is inferable. However, 'additional resources' is unexplained jargon (likely resource add-ons tied to a tariff, per the nested schema) and nothing distinguishes this from the sibling services_resources_get_additional_resources_price, which is clearly the pricing counterpart to this mutation.

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 call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite to fetch a price first (an obvious sibling does exactly that), and no note that the service id must already exist. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the name.

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