add_enumeration_restriction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation ('Add'), implies it modifies specifications, and shows the return format. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. The example helps but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, lists args with brief explanations, shows returns, and provides a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting (bullet-like args list) enhances readability.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining most parameters and the tool's purpose. The output schema is provided via the Returns section, so return values are documented. However, for a mutation tool with complex parameters, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error handling, idempotency).

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all parameters: 'spec_id' as 'Specification identifier or name', 'facet_index' as 'Index of facet in location (0-based)', etc. The example illustrates how 'parameter_name' and 'values' work. However, it doesn't explain 'ctx' (auto-injected) or provide format details for 'base_type' beyond examples.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add enumeration restriction (list of allowed values)' with a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('enumeration restriction'), and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_bounds_restriction' or 'add_pattern_restriction' by specifying the restriction type. The example further clarifies by showing it restricts property values to specific enumerated options.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to add enumeration restrictions to parameters in specifications. It mentions the 'location' parameter defaulting to 'requirements', implying usage in that context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., when to choose 'add_bounds_restriction' instead).

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