add_classification_facet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is 'Add' (implying mutation) and shows a return format, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'ctx: FastMCP Context (auto-injected)' note could be omitted as it's implementation detail not needed for tool selection.

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 mutation nature (no annotations), 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description does well by explaining all parameters and showing a return example. However, it lacks context about when this operation is valid or what happens on failure, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section with clear meanings (e.g., 'location: "applicability" or "requirements"', 'cardinality: "required", "optional", or "prohibited"'). It adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format details like what a 'specification identifier' entails.

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 specific action ('Add a classification facet') and target resource ('to a specification'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_attribute_facet or add_material_facet by specifying the facet type. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_entity_facet or add_property_facet. The description mentions the tool's function but doesn't indicate appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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