ontology_add

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects—check-first refusal and re-rendering the words skill on success—which is good. Yet it stops short of explaining what 'findings' contain, how failures are returned, or any permission or idempotency details, leaving gaps.

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 sentence broken by a dash, with a second short sentence. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes only high-signal details, with no wasted words.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is too brief to be fully actionable. It covers the primary behavior and side effect but does not explain required inputs, optional parameters, or the structure of 'findings,' despite an output schema existing. The low schema coverage makes this a significant shortfall.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'word' and 'taken name,' which vaguely maps to 'name' and 'definition' but leaves 'code', 'kind', 'test', and 'owner' entirely undocumented. This adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the property names themselves.

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 verb 'author' with the resource 'word' and explicitly states the check-first behavior ('a taken name is refused with findings'), making its primary action clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ontology_check and ontology_words by focusing on creation with a built-in existence check.

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 the tool is for adding new words ('Author a word') and that it performs a check first, which suggests it should be used instead of calling ontology_check separately. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the guidance at the implied level.

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