sc_mark_for_add

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 states only the action, without mentioning side effects (e.g., changes to source control status), prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), or potential failures. This is a significant omission for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of eight words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose with no redundant information. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 tool with a single parameter and a simple action, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important contextual details such as error behavior, idempotency, or what happens after marking files for add. No output schema exists, so the description could have provided more clarity on expected results.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with the parameter description 'File paths to mark for add', which mirrors the tool description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Mark'), the object ('new file(s)'), and the domain ('in source control'). It distinguishes itself from sibling source control tools like sc_status, sc_checkout, sc_checkin, sc_revert, and sc_diff by focusing on adding new files.

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 phrase 'new file(s)' implies this tool is for untracked files, subtly indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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