tokportal_add_edit_slots

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

Annotations only provide default false hints (readOnly, destructive, etc.), offering no behavioral insight. The description adds no information about side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or retry behavior beyond the idempotency_key parameter (which is in the schema but not in the description). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that is concise but arguably too brief. It conveys the core action without waste, but could incorporate more context (e.g., slot quantity range, idempotency support) without becoming verbose. Front-loading is acceptable but would benefit from immediate distinction from sibling tools.

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 complexity (nested body parameter with constraints) and the existence of a closely related sibling ('add_video_slots'), the description lacks crucial context. It does not explain what 'edit slots' are, how they relate to video slots, what happens after adding (e.g., response, impact on bundle state), or any error conditions. The absence of an output schema further increases the need for descriptive completeness.

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 100%: each parameter has a brief description (e.g., 'Bundle ID', 'JSON request body'). While the tool description does not add further meaning, the schema already adequately documents the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade understanding.

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 ('Add edit slots') and the resource ('a bundle'), making the primary function understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'tokportal_add_video_slots', which likely performs a similar operation for video slots, limiting differentiation.

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 like 'add_video_slots' or other bundle modification tools. It lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have a bundle created already), context, or exclusions.

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