add_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it flags WRITE OPERATION, names the required 'step write scope' permission, and discloses a non-obvious quirk (the create endpoint only stores the body, so deadlines require a follow-up update). It omits error/rate-limit behavior and whether deadline_notif triggers notifications, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the write/permission caveat, then the deadline quirk. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so the explicit return-value sentence is largely redundant, and the description is otherwise adequate for the write itself. However, with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, leaving 'deadline_notif' and the deadline-assignment behavior only partially explained is a real gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all five params. It does add the deadline format (date/datetime string) and its stored-vs-applied behavior, and its entity-type list maps to the entity_type values, but 'id', 'body' and especially 'deadline_notif' 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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (a step/task), and enumerates the exact set of host entities it accepts (experiment, item, experiment template, item type). This clearly separates it from sibling mutators like update_step, toggle_step and delete_step without opening any schema.

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 implies usage — it must be an existing entity, and it routes deadline setting to 'a follow-up update' — but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as update_step or when a step should be created at all. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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