action_requirements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful side-effect: 'Skips if the library is preinstalled.' However, it does not describe other effects such as whether the requirements file is appended in place, whether existing entries are replaced, or what happens when the endpoint is invalid or missing.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the preinstalled-skip exception is a meaningful behavioral note that earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, this is minimally viable: it states the purpose and one important side-effect. Still, it leaves gaps around prerequisites, failure behavior, and what a successful call returns or changes beyond the requirements.txt update.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description only reuses the word 'library' and adds no additional format, relationship, or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('library to an endpoint's requirements.txt'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools that add services or secrets rather than Python libraries.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need to add a library to an endpoint's requirements.txt. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites such as whether the endpoint must already exist.

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