crate_add

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds two meaningful behaviors not in the schema: preserves insertion order and skips duplicates. It implies mutation via 'append' but does not mention error handling or prerequisites, which would make it more complete.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the action and packs the key behavioral nuances into a parenthetical. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the most important edge behaviors. It does not state that the crate must already exist or that track IDs must be valid, which are inferable but not explicit. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It says little beyond the parameter names themselves ('crate' and 'tracks'), adding no constraints on valid IDs, formats, or preconditions. This is a minimal addition over the raw schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'append' with a clear resource ('tracks to a crate'), which unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like crate_create and crate_list. The parenthetical about insertion order and duplicate skipping further refines the purpose.

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 context is clear: use this tool to append tracks to an existing crate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the action is concrete enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario. No exclusions are provided, so it misses the 'explicit' bar for a 5.

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