hebbrix_claim_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that a six-digit code is sent to the email, that the code is passed to hebbrix_claim_verify, and that memory, collection, and guest credential carry over with no migration or reset. It could mention side effects like sending an email or potential rate limits, but the disclosed traits are meaningful and non-obvious.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the precondition, the code flow, the continuation tool, and the guarantee about preserved data. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simple structure (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema present), the description fully covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to call it, what the user must have already done, what happens next, and what remains unchanged. The output schema covers return details, so the description doesn't need to.

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 add meaning. It does so by explaining that the email is the destination for the six-digit code and is provided by the human as part of the claim request. While it doesn't specify format or validation, the single 'email' parameter's purpose is clearly contextualized.

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 tool's purpose: starting an email claim process to keep an accountless guest memory permanently. It uses a specific verb ('starting') and resource ('email claim'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'hebbrix_claim_verify' by describing the start step that precedes verification.

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 names the next step and points to the alternative sibling tool, 'hebbrix_claim_verify', clarifying the workflow.

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