briefing_add

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It communicates what this tool does (adds to a review queue for the user) and its underlying purpose/motivation. While it doesn't explicitly state side effects like whether items are persisted long-term or how they get resolved, the 'for user review' framing and the note about decisions 'never actually received' provide meaningful behavioral context about the tool's role in the decision workflow.

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 compact — roughly 4 sentences that each earn their place. Front-loaded with the core action ('Add a decision item'), followed by concrete use cases, then a compelling operational rationale. No wasted prose or repetition of schema content.

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 6-parameter tool with an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, triggers, examples, and the failure mode it prevents. Minor gap: doesn't clarify the relationship between this tool and briefing_list/resolve/dismiss lifecycle, but the sibling differentiation is adequately handled through purpose and usage guidance. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with all 6 parameters fully documented in the input schema itself: title, description, options, recommendation, urgency, tags. The description doesn't add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting; no additional parameter nuance is provided in the description but none is strictly needed.

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?

Description clearly states the verb+resource: 'Add a decision item to Leader Briefing for user review.' It goes beyond and specifies the exact use case (project direction, architecture, budget, allocation) and even explains why this matters — 'a decision parked in report prose is a decision the user never actually received.' This strongly distinguishes it from siblings like briefing_list, briefing_resolve, briefing_dismiss.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when Leader encounters decisions that require user input') with concrete examples (project direction, architecture choices, budget/resource allocation). It also gives clear exclusionary framing — anything a sub-agent leaves 'for the user to decide' belongs here — and contrasts with what should NOT happen (decisions parked in report prose). This is highly actionable for an agent deciding between this and related briefing/dismiss/resolve tools.

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