annotate_wisdom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes that annotations are 'timestamped and appended below the matching entry,' which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it omits details on authorization, what happens if search fails, or potential side effects on the wisdom file.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the action, usage context, and behavioral metaphor.

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 presence of 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage timing, and basic behavior (timestamped append). It is reasonably complete for an agent to use correctly, though more detail on the non-required parameters' interaction (e.g., section vs file_path) would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra value, like explaining that search is used 'to place the annotation near' and giving an example for comment. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Add a comment or correction to existing wisdom,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_wisdom or save_wisdom by focusing on annotation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides clear guidance: 'Use when you discover a previous assumption was wrong, needs clarification, or has new context.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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