adopt_discovered_agent

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description reinforces and extends this: it states the required write scope, that existing traces are never backfilled, that repeated adoption into the same agent changes nothing, and that results are wrapped with untrusted_fields that must be treated as data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: auth requirement, core action, both modes, error semantics, idempotency, and output wrapping. It is front-loaded with the most important facts and uses clear separation of concerns.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers authentication, creation vs merge behavior, error codes, idempotency, non-backfill behavior, and the response wrapper. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results safely.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (id as discovered source UUID, agent_id as optional agent UUID), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavior: omitting agent_id triggers agent creation, agent_id should come from suggested_agent_id, and the 409 error conditions clarify parameter choice consequences.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Count a discovered trace source's traces under an agent from now on.' It clearly distinguishes the two modes (create a new agent vs merge into an existing one) and references sibling tools register_agent and list_discovered_agents, so an agent can tell this apart from related operations.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: omit agent_id to create a new agent, provide agent_id (from suggested_agent_id in list_discovered_agents) to merge. It also handles the edge case where the slug is taken (409 AGENT_EXISTS) and instructs to merge instead, plus notes that re-adopting is a no-op and cross-agent adoption returns 409 ALREADY_ADOPTED.

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