Add items to an intake

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

Beyond what the annotations provide (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the client is notified, existing items and submitted values are unaffected, and the updated intake object is returned. These are meaningful behavioral details that help an agent anticipate side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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 tightly structured: first sentence states the core action with examples, second covers behavioral side effects, third gives the key constraint reference. No fluff or redundancy, and important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with fully documented schema properties, this description is complete. It covers when to use it, what happens on execution, return value, and item format constraints. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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 coverage is high and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds value by explicitly tying items to define_intake rules (snake_case keys, type-specific constraints) and giving practical examples of item types like favicon or credentials. This supplements the schema's generic descriptions.

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 operation: adding new items to an already-sent intake. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like define_intake (creating an intake) and update_item (modifying an existing item) by focusing specifically on post-submission additions, reinforced by concrete examples.

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 gives a clear usage scenario: adding items mid-project after an intake has already been sent. It implies the alternative is define_intake for initial definitions, and even cross-references its item rules. It lacks an explicit exclusion statement, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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