mosaic_target_wishlist_add

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

The description matches annotations: idempotentHint=true is corroborated by 'Idempotent: re-requesting the same gene/email bumps a counter.' It also adds that the tool returns closest covered targets, going beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences front-load purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage scenario, idempotency, and extra return behavior. 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 simple request tool with only one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, idempotency, and return value. Sufficient for an AI agent to correctly invoke it.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (gene_symbol, notes, user_email) fully. The description adds behavioral context (idempotency bump) but no extra parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 tool requests a target not yet covered by Mosaic. It distinguishes from sibling analysis tools by focusing on submission for future ingestion. The verb 'request' and resource 'target' are specific.

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 'Use this when a gene is outside the current covered set,' providing clear context. It explains the operator's role but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, which are numerous among siblings.

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