add_object

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does mention the return value ('Returns the created object summary') and the optional child behavior, but it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or persistence implications. Adequate for a straightforward add operation but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the optional behavior, and then the return value. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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?

For an add operation with a rich schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return. It doesn't mention failure cases explicitly, but those are implied by the schema's uniqueness note and parentName error. Overall, quite complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage). The description only adds context around parentName and the prime/component distinction, which is minimal beyond what the schema's enum and property descriptions already convey. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 object') and the resource ('to a cell'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_objects, remove_object, and clone_object. It also mentions the optional child relationship via parentName, which adds precision.

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 context is clear: this tool is for creating new objects. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes it obvious when to use add_object versus other object operations. The optional parentName note gives a specific usage scenario.

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