codesweep_add

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the mutation semantics: recurrence_count bump, last_seen update, archive flag clearing, tag overwrite on bump, and returned fields. This goes well beyond a basic 'add' statement and makes side effects predictable. Minor ambiguity around the duplicates_skipped alias does not undermine the disclosure.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then a concise behavior note, parameter list, and return shape. No sentence is wasted and no structured field is repeated needlessly. The layout is easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool's purpose, non-obvious side effects, all parameters, and return fields, which is sufficient for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations. The R5 archive-flag rule gives critical edge-case context. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

All three parameters are given semantic descriptions that the bare schema lacks: sweep_ref accepts 'SW-N' or name, items are identifiers to add, and tags are per-batch with overwrite behavior. This fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage. Item identifier format is not specified but the type is clear from 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add items to a sweep.' It then clarifies the atomic upsert behavior, making the tool's function unmistakable and distinct from sweep creation/listing siblings. This is not a tautology and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly states the operation ('Add items to a sweep') and the atomic upsert semantics, giving an agent clear context for when to call it. It does not name alternative siblings or exclusions, but the namespaced function name and explicit action make the intended use unambiguous. This is clearer than mere implication.

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