declare_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. It does not say whether existing types are overwritten, whether declarations persist without an idb_save call, what happens on parse errors, or what the operation returns. 'Local type library' hints at scope but leaves the mutation semantics unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for the surface it covers. It is efficient, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and several closely related type-mutation siblings, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from the text alone when to reach for declare_type versus set_type or type_apply_batch, nor what the effect on the IDB will be.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about decls beyond restating 'C type definitions', and notably does not explain the anyOf shape (single string vs array of strings) or whether multiple declarations are applied atomically.

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 gives a clear verb+resource: declaring C type definitions into the local type library. An agent knows what kind of operation this is. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like set_type, type_apply_batch, or enum_upsert, so the boundary of its purpose is left implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. The sibling list contains set_type, type_apply_batch, infer_types, and enum_upsert, and the description never says when declaring types here is preferable to those alternatives or what prerequisites apply beyond the schema's note about instance_id.

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