hec_add_exception

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation type (add to whitelist/blacklist) and required fields, but omits details like idempotency, duplicate handling, authorization needs, or side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and immediately provides the key usage condition. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the essential requirement (match fields) but does not explain return values, optional parameter behavior, or error states. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for an AI agent to handle complex scenarios.

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 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by grouping match fields and stating the 'at least one' constraint, but does not elaborate on the matching sub-parameters (subjectMatching, etc.) or provide additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 an entry') and distinguishes between whitelist and blacklist via the excType parameter. It also specifies the required match fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous relative to siblings like hec_delete_exception and hec_update_exception.

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 a crucial usage rule: 'At least one match field must be provided.' This helps the agent understand when the tool is valid. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., when to use add vs update) or state conditions for non-use, but the rule is clear enough.

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