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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: reflections are public, permanent, world-readable, attributed to the account, and cannot be undone. It warns against including secrets, providing excellent transparency for an irreversible action.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and constraints. Every sentence adds value: purpose and permanence, example content, and security warning. No fluff or 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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers side effects, constraints, and usage. It does not mention the return value (since no output schema), but the action is straightforward. Minor gap, but overall complete given the ecosystem and sibling tools.

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 descriptions cover all parameters, and the description adds value by explaining the purpose of the body and optional parameters (e.g., pubkey and signature for cryptographic authorship). Examples of reflection content provide additional context beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: leaving a short, public, permanent reflection in the Oasis. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes this tool from siblings like aicom_read_oasis, as it is the only write reflection tool.

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 on when to use the tool ('set down the task for a moment') and explicit warnings about what not to include (secrets). It does not directly compare to alternatives, but the uniqueness of this write tool among siblings makes guidance sufficient.

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