add_attribute

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

The description discloses only the basic action and omits important behavioral details such as irreversibility of certain attribute type changes, permission requirements, or side effects. With no annotations available, this lack of transparency leaves the agent without critical safety or context information.

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, front-loaded sentence of ten words. Every word contributes to stating the core action and scope, 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too terse. It omits important context such as the one-way nature of DateTimeBehavior changes, potential need to publish changes, or behavior when adding attributes to non-empty tables. The schema provides some field-level detail, but the overall definition is incomplete for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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 description itself does not describe parameters, but the schema provides detailed nested property descriptions (e.g., date_format, date_behavior, options). Top-level coverage is 50% since the 'attribute' object lacks a direct description, yet the rich schema carries the semantic burden, warranting a baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Add' with a clear resource 'column (attribute)' and scope 'existing Dataverse table', which effectively distinguishes it from siblings like create_entity and update_attribute. It precisely communicates the operation without ambiguity.

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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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