brief_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: EXIF-strip status is recorded per photo, license_required accepts unknown|no|yes:<type>, and the tool issues a version-1 hash that approval binds to. It omits mutation-safety details such as permissions, idempotency, behavior on duplicate brief_id, and what happens to uploaded photos.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is one dense run-on sentence enumerating a dozen fields with no grouping or line breaks, which makes it harder to parse than its length warrants. Most content earns its place, but the structure undermines readability.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the domain fields well and notes the version hash. It still leaves required-vs-optional expectations, validation rules, failure behavior, and the relationship to brief_read/brief_update unexplained.

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% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does: it names or characterizes category, service, scope with statement/items, ZIP-tier location, timing window, ceiling, tip policy, photos, safety/access, intended/prohibited platforms, and details. It adds semantics the schema lacks, notably the license_required value space, but leaves brief_id unexplained and gives no format detail for the nested objects.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Create a canonical Task Brief' — and enumerates the domain content that distinguishes a brief from a generic record. It does not explicitly contrast with brief_update or brief_approve, so sibling differentiation is left to the verb alone.

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 by the lifecycle framing ('Issues the version-1 hash an approval binds to'), which suggests this precedes brief_approve. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing guidance to brief_update for modifications or brief_read for retrieval.

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