add_experiment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that an experiment is added, but does not mention duplicate handling, required concept relationships, side effects, idempotency, or any validation behavior. This is insufficient 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the core action and resource immediately, which is appropriate for a short purpose statement.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, this description is far too sparse. An agent cannot determine what data is needed, what the response will be, or how failures are handled, making the tool risky to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning beyond 'experiment'. Required versus optional fields, the role of fields like test, organism, cell_type, treatment, and duration_hours, and how they relate to the experiment are entirely unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('experiment to the database'), clearly indicating a creation operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_experiment, search_experiments, and add_research_document by naming the experiment resource explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_research_document or update/search tools. The 'Add' phrasing implies creation, but there are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent select it confidently.

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