add_partof_facet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Add' (implying mutation) and shows a return format, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error conditions, or system constraints. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation and return example. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter documentation could be more integrated with the main description rather than in a separate 'Args:' section.

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 provides basic parameter examples and a return example (output schema exists). However, for a mutation tool with multiple parameters, it lacks sufficient context about the domain, error handling, and integration with sibling tools.

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 examples for 'location', 'relation', 'parent_entity', and 'cardinality', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain 'spec_id' or 'parent_predefined_type', leaving 2 of 6 parameters without semantic clarification.

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 action ('Add a partOf facet') and target resource ('to a specification'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_attribute_facet' or 'add_entity_facet' by specifying the facet type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools in the list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other 'add_*_facet' tools or 'add_specification'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where this specific facet type is appropriate.

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