item_take_add

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and return value, but omits side effects (e.g., whether the new take becomes active), error conditions (e.g., invalid item_index), or any other behavioral characteristics beyond the minimal 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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful structure such as examples or a note on return value format. It earns its place but could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not clarify that this tool applies only to items supporting takes (e.g., audio items), nor does it explain the return value's format or error handling. An agent would need additional context to use it safely.

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?

The single parameter 'item_index' is described as 'Global item index', adding slight context beyond the schema's title and type. However, no further meaning is provided (e.g., zero-based vs one-based, range of valid indices, or relationship to other item tools). With 100% schema coverage of the parameter name but 0% description coverage, the description adds minimal value.

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 new empty take to an item') and the resource ('item'), and specifies the return value ('Returns the new take's index'). It distinguishes from sibling take manipulation tools like item_take_delete_active, item_take_list, and item_take_set_active.

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 or when not to. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., item must exist), no alternatives suggested, and no context that might help an agent choose between this and other take-related tools.

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