create_settings_discover_add

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

Annotations already establish that the operation is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the HTTP method and the need to inspect GET/schema for expected fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, or failure modes.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then endpoint, then args. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 low-complexity create endpoint with one open body parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential invocation steps and points to the source of truth for the body schema. It loses a point because 'the matching GET' is somewhat vague and no distinction is made from the similar sibling create_settings_discover.

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 0%, and the only parameter is an opaque body object. The description compensates by identifying body as the request payload and directing the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the expected fields. It does not enumerate fields, but for an open object this is a practical and meaningful pointer.

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') and the resource ('a new slider'), and includes the exact endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling create_settings_discover, so an agent may be unsure which create-like tool to choose.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as create_settings_discover or update_settings_discover_by_slider_id. The instruction to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is a prerequisite, not a selection rule.

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