commit_aiex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose real traits: sequential ID assignment at write time, one entry per confirmed insight, and a tagging side effect ('All entries are tagged as AI-Extracted'). It omits permissions, validation/error behavior, and whether re-running duplicates entries, leaving some gaps for a mutation 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by storage behavior, usage condition, and an Args block. It uses more vertical space than needed due to the docstring-style formatting, but every section earns its place without redundant prose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the definition covers purpose, upstream dependency, storage semantics, the full parameter structure, and the return shape. An output schema exists so the description needn't detail return values, and it still notes the confirmation. Remaining gaps (permissions, idempotency) are minor.

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, and it does substantially: it enumerates the top-level JSON fields (entry_type, date, source_platform, session_focus, insights, open_questions, action_items) and the nested insight fields (text, confidence_tier, tags, connections). It stops short of formats or allowed values for fields like entry_type and confidence_tier.

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: 'Write confirmed AIEX insights to the knowledge base', and adds that each insight becomes a separate AIEX-NNN entry. It is clear and concrete, but it does not distinguish itself from the other commit_* siblings (commit_distillation, commit_assessment, commit_observation), so an agent must infer the difference from the AIEX naming.

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 an explicit prerequisite and upstream tool: 'Call this after the user has reviewed and approved the output from extract_insights().' This tells the agent when to invoke it relative to a named sibling, but offers no when-not guidance or contrast with the other commit tools.

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