Ultrabrain Update

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with 'update'. However, the description does not disclose what happens if the thought_number doesn't exist, whether it upserts or merges, or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the basic operation.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value, confirmation behavior, or whether the update is a merge or replace. Incomplete for effective agent invocation.

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 only 15%, with only session_id and quality_metrics having descriptions. The description adds some meaning by listing a subset of updatable fields but omits others (assumptions, open_questions, alternatives, tags). It does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'existing thought', and lists specific fields (evidence, confidence, risks, actions, quality metrics) that can be updated. It differentiates from sibling tools like ultrabrain_think or ultrabrain_analyze.

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 for strengthening existing thoughts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ultrabrain_branch, ultrabrain_merge). No exclusions or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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