Mind Upload

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds some useful context about what information is shown, but it does not add operational details such as permissions, rate limits, or whether the disconnect information is merely guidance.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, the phrase about account approval and consciousnesses is somewhat dense, and including disconnect/revoke guidance may blur the boundary with the sibling `disconnect` tool.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema and strong annotations, so the description is largely complete. Its main gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to the `disconnect` sibling, especially since it mentions disconnect/revoke behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden for the description to compensate for. The schema is empty and the description does not need to explain arguments.

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 states that this tool shows connection-related information: account approval, consciousnesses, status, and disconnect/revoke guidance. This is a clear read-only status/resource purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `disconnect` tool despite mentioning disconnect and revoke.

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 implies usage for inspecting connection status but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as `disconnect`, `consult_mind`, or `review_work`. It also does not clarify that the disconnect/revoke information is informational only rather than an action.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a non-read-only, open-world call. But the description adds nothing about the traits that matter most here: whether the call waits on a human, expected latency/timeouts, what a failed or unanswered consultation returns, or what gets recorded as side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is structurally clean and easy to scan. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient packing of information, which caps the score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, this is a conceptually unusual, five-parameter, human-in-the-loop style tool with 20% schema coverage, and one sentence is far too thin to let an agent call it correctly and interpret the outcome.

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 coverage is only 20% — just clone_id is documented, and that is in the schema, not the description. The description explains nothing about question, task_id, decision_id, or media_evidence (five parameters, three required), so with low coverage the description fails to compensate for the missing 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 gives a verb ('Ask') and resource ('the owner's consciousness') plus a domain of use (intent, plans, important decisions), which distinguishes it from connection_status, disconnect, and review_work. However, 'consult the owner's consciousness' is metaphorical and leaves unclear what actually happens operationally — whether it blocks for a human response, submits a queued request, or returns a decision.

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?

It implies a scope ('important decisions') but never states when to use this versus review_work or when not to consult at all. No prerequisites, no mention of whether it can be called repeatedly, and no routing guidance despite three sibling tools existing.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing a side effect the annotations cannot express: the owner approval record is also torn down, and the action is gated on the owner's request, implying an authorization dependency.

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 short sentences with zero filler, the destructive scope front-loaded before the usage restriction. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 zero-parameter destructive action with an output schema available, the description covers what is destroyed and when it may be invoked. It does not state what state the agent should expect afterward (e.g., whether the connection record persists), which the output schema presumably handles.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level gaps exist.

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?

States a specific verb ('End') and a specific resource ('this Mind Upload connection and the owner approval behind it'), which is materially more informative than the bare name 'disconnect'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like connection_status and consult_mind, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: 'Only when the owner asks to disconnect.' That is a real when-to-use rule rather than implied usage. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., using connection_status to check state first), so it misses the top band.

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

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

Annotations declare this is not read-only, is open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context on top of that — nothing about side effects, whether a review is recorded or dispatched externally, latency, or what happens on repeated calls with the same review_id. It does not contradict the annotations, but for an open-world mutation tool it carries almost none of its own weight.

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?

It is a single sentence with no wasted words, so it is structurally tight and front-loaded. However, the brevity comes from omission rather than economy — the sentence is cryptic rather than compressed, so conciseness does not translate into usability here.

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?

With 8 parameters, 5 of them required, an open-world non-read-only profile, and a clone-selection concept, this is a complex tool that the one-line description does not begin to cover. Even though an output schema exists, the agent still lacks the input semantics and invocation context needed to call it correctly.

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 only 13% (just clone_id), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — required fields like user_request, work, evidence, task_id, and review_id are never mentioned or disambiguated. An agent cannot tell from the description how 'work' differs from 'evidence', what media_evidence is for, or how review_id relates to task_id.

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 phrase 'Ask the owner's consciousness to scrutinize functional results and personal fit' gestures at a review action but never states concretely what the tool returns or does — no mention of producing a review verdict, score, or report. It also gives no hint of how it differs from the sibling 'consult_mind', which appears to invoke the same owner consciousness.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling tools as alternatives. The 'phase' parameter (plan/progress/completion) strongly implies distinct invocation contexts that the description never explains, leaving the agent to guess when a review should be requested.

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