Ultrabrain Update

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: false) provide minimal info. The description adds 'stronger' implying improvement but does not clarify if it's a partial update (merge) or full replacement, required permissions, or side effects like overwriting existing data.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but too brief to be informative. It front-loads the action but lacks structure to enumerate parameters or provide examples. Every word earns its place, but the sentence fails to convey sufficient detail.

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?

With 13 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain update semantics (e.g., merging vs overwriting), required parameters beyond thought_number, and behavior when optional fields are omitted. It does not provide enough context for correct tool use.

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 low (15%), and the description only highlights a subset of parameters. The term 'stronger' groups evidence, confidence, risks, actions, quality metrics but does not explain their meaning or constraints beyond the schema's sparse documentation. Missing parameters like assumptions, open_questions are not addressed.

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 states 'Update an existing thought' with a verb and resource, and lists some fields (evidence, confidence, risks, actions, quality metrics). However, it omits many other schema fields like assumptions, open_questions, alternatives, and tags, making it incomplete. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like ultrabrain_branch or ultrabrain_merge.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ultrabrain_branch for branching, ultrabrain_review for review). No mention of prerequisites or scenarios where update is appropriate or not.

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