add_canon

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description usefully adds that files are placed in canon/ and ingested by the daemon, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior or what happens if the filename already exists.

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 with no filler. The action and location are front-loaded, and the example list is compact while still conveying the range of acceptable canon material.

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 simple two-parameter write tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the where, what, and why. It does not mention overwrite semantics or return values, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and available schema/annotation context.

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?

Since the schema already documents both filename and content at 100% coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining what kind of content belongs in canon (character sheets, maps, lore, style guides), which helps an agent populate the content parameter appropriately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: adding a reference document to the canon/ directory, and clarifies the daemon's ingest purpose. The canon/ location and reference-material examples distinguish it from sibling tools like add_note and the get_* tools.

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 implies usage by enumerating worldbuilding content types (character sheets, maps, lore, timelines, style guides) that belong in canon. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with add_note or states when not to use this tool, leaving the routing mostly implicit.

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