add_party_website

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions atomicity and default service value, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether adding duplicates is allowed, idempotency, error cases, or return behavior). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first gives the core action and alternative, the second provides parameter detail. 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?

Adequate for a simple tool with three parameters. It covers purpose, alternative, and parameter format. Missing return value behavior (no output schema) and error conditions. Could be improved with brief notes on idempotency or duplicates.

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 67%, with address and service already described. The tool description reinforces the address format with an example but adds no new information for partyId. It does not compensate for the missing partyId description.

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 ('append') and resource ('single website / social handle to a party'), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'update_party.websites' by specifying it is for single-entry adds. The address format is also clarified with 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 explicitly says to use this tool instead of 'update_party.websites' for single-entry adds, providing a clear alternative. It also notes atomicity. However, it does not specify when not to use it beyond the implicit bulk case.

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