add_lane

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: 'Existing assignments are moved from their previous lane.' This adds specific context about mutation and potential data relocation, complementing the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second delivers a critical side-effect. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for quick comprehension.

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?

Beyond the schema and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and the move-behavior. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., pool existence) or error conditions, but with an output schema present and a well-covered input schema, this is adequate for correct invocation in most cases.

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 already provides full descriptions for all parameters (coverage 100%). The description does not add new meaning about params like position or flowNodeIds beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a lane to a white-box pool and assign flow nodes to it.' It also notes the side-effect of moving existing assignments, which distinguishes it from simple add operations like add_pool. This makes the tool's purpose 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?

The description implies usage context (adding lanes to a white-box pool) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like add_pool or add_activity. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the resource type.

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