brain_validate

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core state change (a 're-checked today' marker, i.e. an implicit timestamp stamp) and that confidence is optional, but it omits whether a supplied confidence overwrites the prior value, what happens if the id doesn't exist, and whether validation affects search ranking/decay.

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 zero filler; the primary action comes first and the optional modifier follows.

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 2-param tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) this is close, but the missing confidence scale and unstated error/side-effect behavior leave gaps the agent can't fill from structured fields, since no annotations and no param descriptions exist.

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 description must compensate for both params. It does map 'note' to id and 'optionally with a new confidence' to confidence, clarifying optionality — but it gives no scale, bounds, or units for confidence (the schema allows any number), which is the one piece an agent most needs.

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+resource: marking a note as re-checked, with an optional confidence update. The action is distinguishable from brain_encode/brain_link/brain_supersede in kind, though the description never names those siblings to draw the contrast 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?

The description gives no when-to-use condition beyond the implied re-validation workflow, and no guidance on the key decision an agent faces: validate vs. supersede when a note is out of date, or validate vs. encode when it should be re-created. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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