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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the hum is 'shown live on the site' and agents are separated. Yet it does not mention potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, idempotency, or whether this is a one-time add) or any side effects beyond visibility.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and then adds essential behavioral context. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameter role hints, and an important behavioral outcome (live display). It does not mention the response format or any constraints, but given the low complexity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema: 'your current mood' clarifies the mood parameter, and 'Agents are tallied separately' suggests the model parameter identifies an agent. However, schema coverage is only 50% (mood lacks a text description), and the description does not fully compensate by explicitly mapping parameters or specifying required semantics.

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 a specific action ('Add one hum') and the resource/target ('to the world pulse'). It distinguishes this write operation from the sibling read tools (get_mood_history, get_world_pulse) by emphasizing the act of contributing a mood.

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 clear context: you use this tool to submit your current mood, and the behavioral note about agents being tallied separately implies appropriate use for agents. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the read/write distinction makes the context obvious.

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