add_picklist_option

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state required roles and the HTTP 403 consequence, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as side effects, reversibility, or return format. The permission context is helpful but coverage is 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the crucial permission requirement. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, so the description should ideally provide more guidance on expected outputs or when to choose certain parameter combinations. While the schema is comprehensive, the description is minimal and does not explain return values or possible pitfalls. It is adequate but not fully complete for a complex mutation tool.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-specific guidance beyond what is already in the schema, such as the mutual exclusivity of option_set_name vs entity_logical_name, which is already present in the schema properties.

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 an option to an existing Local or Global OptionSet' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_picklist_option and delete_picklist_option by focusing on the 'add' operation, and also specifies the Dataverse action.

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 purpose implies when to use it (adding a new picklist option), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no statement like 'for updating existing options, use update_picklist_option instead.' The usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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