add_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavior: content is chunked at ~1500 characters. However it omits deduplication behavior, what happens when the same title is added twice, whether ingestion is synchronous, and whether any indexing/embedding delay exists before questions can be grounded in the material.

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 with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the behavioral detail and parameter note. Minor weakness: the parenthetical '(empty = any)' is slightly ambiguous without saying what 'any' means for retrieval.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what goes in and how it is chunked, but says nothing about what comes back (e.g., a material id or chunk count) or failure modes, which the agent would otherwise have no source for.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it clarifies `topics` ('which of the user's topics it belongs to (empty = any)') and ties `content` to the chunking behavior. `title` and `content` are self-evident from their names, but `user_id` (with its 'default' default) is never mentioned, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Store the user's own material') and enumerates concrete content types (notes, runbook, postmortem, docs), plus the downstream purpose (grounding questions). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_materials and remove_material by naming the write action, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 purpose clause ('so some questions are grounded in it') implies when to reach for this tool rather than answering directly, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites or how it relates to start_session or the question flow.

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