aethis_add_domain_guidance

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

Annotations declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: hints are auto-retrieved during generation for any project in the domain, and adherence='exact' forces the LLM to follow precisely. It does not address idempotency (what happens if the same hint is added twice), a notable gap for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Front-loaded with the crucial domain-vs-project distinction, and each sentence carries information. The final adherence/process_type sentence is useful but slightly ancillary to the core purpose, adding mild 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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers purpose, scope, retrieval behavior, and key parameter usage, which is sufficient for a write tool. Remaining gaps (idempotency semantics, permission requirements) are minor but real.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by prescribing a concrete parameter pairing (adherence='exact' with process_type='section_discovery') and its effect, which is a usage pattern the schema does not spell out.

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 (add a guidance hint at domain level) and immediately disambiguates scope: 'applies to ALL projects in the domain, not just one project.' This clearly separates it from the sibling aethis_add_guidance, which operates at project level.

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 concrete context for when to use it (cross-section principles like solicitor navigation, discretion model, raw-facts principle) and notes hints are retrieved automatically during generation. It implies the project-level alternative via 'not just one project' but never names aethis_add_guidance explicitly as the alternative to pick instead.

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