reqs_add

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the add action. It does not mention what happens if a requirement with the same req_id already exists, whether the operation is persisted immediately, or any side effects on related data. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list. Each parameter has a short explanatory note, and the content is front-loaded. It is slightly repetitive with the schema names but earns its length by adding examples and allowed values.

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 a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks operational context such as conflict behavior on duplicate req_id, required preconditions, or how the added requirement integrates with existing data. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the missing behavioral and usage context leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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%, so the Args list in the description must compensate, and it does. It provides concrete examples (FR-001, '1.10 Document Sorting', 'Take 26'), enumerates allowed values for priority ('must, should, or could') and status ('planned, partial, implemented, verified, superseded, obsolete'), and clarifies the meaning of description and source. Some entries like 'Optional tags' and 'Optional metadata' are thin, but overall the description adds substantial value 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 'Add a requirement' states a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool creates a single requirement. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like batch_add or reqs_update, but the reqs_ prefix and singular phrasing make the core purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_add, reqs_import, or reqs_update. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness solely from the tool name.

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