analyze_hive_updates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses several key behaviors: duplicate checking, quality enforcement requiring FILES/VERSION, category fragmentation detection, pattern prompting, and suggestion of updates vs new entries. It also states its preventive purpose. It lacks explicit info about side effects or return values, but the detail provided is substantial.

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 front-loaded with a clear action statement but includes some redundancy and marketing-like phrasing ('SMART UPLOAD PROTOCOL', 'PREVENTS hive mistakes by forcing good practices'). It could be more concise by removing the label and final sentence, but it's not excessively long.

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 description covers purpose, triggers, and key behaviors, but given that no output schema exists, it does not explain what the tool returns or what the user should expect after analysis. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites beyond the schema. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, a bit more detail on the result would improve completeness.

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 100%, providing baseline understanding of all parameters. The description adds semantic meaning by emphasizing that FILES/VERSION are required for quality, which maps to the session_summary and files_changed parameters. It also implies how problems_solved is used for duplicate detection. This enriches the schema's bare parameter descriptions.

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 function: analyze proposed hive additions before upload. It lists specific actions (checks duplicates, enforces quality, detects fragmentation, prompts for patterns, suggests updates vs new entries) and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing its pre-upload analysis role, setting it apart from actual update/contribution tools.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('update hive', 'add to hive') and clearly indicates when to use the tool (before uploading). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the trigger and 'BEFORE uploading' context make the usage context clear.

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