hebbrix_claim_start

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

Annotation contradiction: The description explicitly states 'nothing is migrated or reset,' while annotations declare destructiveHint: true. This directly contradicts the system's destructive behavior hint, which could confuse the agent about the tool's safety profile. The description also usefully mentions sending a six-digit code, but the contradiction overrides this positive contribution.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, no filler. Every sentence adds essential information: what the tool does, when to call it, and what side effects to expect. This is a model of concise, structured writing.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, the code-sending side effect, and the carry-over of memory/guest credential. The output schema handles return values, so no need to describe them. However, the contradiction with destructiveHint creates a slight gap in safety context, and it doesn't address potential error cases (e.g., invalid email). Still, for a simple one-parameter tool, it is fairly 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?

With a single parameter (email) and 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that the email is where the six-digit code is sent and that the human must provide it. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify format or validation rules.

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 clearly states the action: 'Keep an accountless guest memory permanently by starting email claim.' It uses a specific verb (start) and resource (email claim), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool hebbrix_claim_verify by explaining that this tool initiates the process and the verification code is passed to verify.

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: 'Only call this after the human explicitly asks to claim/keep the guest memory and provides the email address.' It also explains the follow-up step (pass the code to hebbrix_claim_verify), giving clear context for how this tool fits into the overall flow.

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