automation_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses side effects like 'or start a new one' and the reuse rule, but it does not mention return values, error conditions, or what happens if a point already exists at the same position. It is informative but not fully transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: a two-sentence behavioral summary followed by a five-line Args list. Every line adds distinct information, with no fluff or repetition of schema titles.

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 description covers the core behavior and all parameter semantics, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, it would be stronger if it noted expected return value or failure behavior, and it does not directly position itself against automation_add_curve.

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%, and the Args block fully compensates by explaining every parameter: target types, property enum values, driver format, driver_type options, position meaning, and value meaning. This is essential semantic information beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add one point to an existing curve (or start a new one).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling automation_add_curve by emphasizing single-point addition, and it also explains reuse with 'Same target/driver/property reuses the matching curve.'

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 context—use it to add a point or start a new curve—and explains reuse behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like automation_add_curve or automation_list. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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