concept_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose some behavior beyond the schema: it refuses duplicate ids, index_entry adds the concept to the map's curated index, and it returns findings. It still omits the mutation's side effects, whether index_entry defaults on or off, and what a refused id returns, which are meaningful gaps for a write tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, with no padding. The phrasing is compressed to the point of being cryptic ('records it as its shape', 'Returns findings'), which costs a little clarity but not length.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested vars object, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the create/refuse/index behaviors but leaves vars semantics, index_entry defaulting, and the vague 'findings' return undefined. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 20% (essentially just 'reason'), so the description must compensate. It explains template (comes from template_list), id (must not already exist), and index_entry (adds to the curated index), but says nothing about vars or how template variables are supplied, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Creates a concept') plus the source of its content (a KB template from template_list) and a distinctive constraint (refuses an existing id), which separates it from the generic concept_write/concept_patch siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied: create a concept when you have a template and a new id, and the 'Refuses an existing id' clause gives a when-not condition. However no alternative is named (e.g. use concept_write to overwrite, concept_batch for bulk), so routing between the many concept_* siblings is left to inference.

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