add_additional_party

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

The description discloses idempotent behavior, error handling (Capsule's 422 converted), and response format. Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, but the description adds concrete behavioral details beyond 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 concise (4 sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers idempotency and response. Each sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the response format. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics adequately for a moderate-complexity tool. Slightly lacking in parameter detail for entityId, but overall 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 coverage is 67% with descriptions for entity and partyId, but entityId lacks description. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies as schema does most of the work.

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 action: 'Link an existing party as an additional (secondary) party on an opportunity or project.' It distinguishes from setting the main party by referencing update_opportunity/update_project, and differentiates from sibling tools like remove_additional_party. Specific verb and resource with scope.

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 tells when to use this tool (to add additional parties beyond the main one) and provides context for the main party being set elsewhere. It also explains idempotency, guiding safe repeated calls. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the main party tools.

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