twilize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a parameter but gives no information about permissions required, whether this action is reversible, potential side effects, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for its brevity.

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 (9 parameters, 1 required) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral traits, and while an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at what to expect from the operation, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 9 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool's name, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. Parameters like 'datatype', 'domain_type', and 'allowed_values' remain unexplained.

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 a parameter to the workbook' clearly states the action (add) and target resource (parameter to workbook), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'add_calculated_field' or 'add_dashboard' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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, such as when to add a parameter versus other workbook components like calculated fields or dashboards. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints mentioned, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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