tcg_psa_add_to_collection

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly adds that it writes to the local SQLite DB and returns a new card_id. It also mentions error handling for duplicates and normalizes the PSA response. This goes beyond the annotation signals, providing valuable behavioral context.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured with a clear separation of the workflow nature and error handling. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (a workflow tool combining two operations) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the key points: the combination, normalization, DB write, return value, and duplicate handling. It could mention error handling for invalid cert numbers, but overall it is fairly complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Despite the schema having some parameter descriptions (acquisition_price, acquisition_date, acquisition_source), the context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. However, the description only mentions 'cost basis' and does not elaborate on other parameters like notes, tags, or acquisition_source. This leaves the agent to rely on the schema alone, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 it looks up a PSA cert and records it in the local collection, distinguishing itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning it combines tcg_psa_get_cert and tcg_collection_add_card. The verb 'look up' and 'record' are specific, and the resource (PSA cert and local collection) is well-defined.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use (workflow for adding a PSA cert with cost basis) and when-not-to-use (if already added, returns error and suggests tcg_collection_update instead). It clearly presents an alternative, making it easy for an agent to decide.

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