add_program

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses idempotency semantics (existing program_url short-circuits the insert and returns the existing id). It says nothing about required fields, defaults (research_status='discovered', eligibility_status='unknown'), permissions, or what happens with partial/duplicate data.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the idempotency rule front-loaded immediately after the action statement. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but a 21-parameter write tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions needs far more than two sentences. Required-field guidance, defaults, and failure/duplicate handling are all absent.

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?

21 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains meaning for only one of them (program_url as the uniqueness key). The remaining 20 fields, including the required university and program_name, get no added semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Insert a program', and it names the dedup key (program_url). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_program_fit or get_program, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The dedup conditional ('if program_url already exists, return that id') is a behavioral rule, not routing advice, so the agent gets no help deciding between this and update_program_fit or get_program.

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