twilize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Add' operation, implying a mutation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context or parameter semantics, making it inadequate for effective tool use.

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%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond their names implied by context. It doesn't explain what 'action_type', 'fields', or other parameters mean, leaving semantics entirely undocumented.

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 'Add an interaction action to a dashboard' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('interaction action to a dashboard'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what an 'interaction action' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'add_dashboard' or 'configure_chart', which also modify dashboards. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a dashboard), or exclusions. With many sibling tools for dashboard manipulation, this omission leaves the agent without direction on selecting this specific tool.

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