carapace_contribute

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, auth requirements, or return values. 'Share' implies a write operation, but the agent is left guessing about conflict handling or whether contributions can be updated.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds useful quality guidance without unnecessary 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It adequately explains the purpose and hints at content quality, but it doesn't mention success/failure behavior or how this fits into the broader knowledge-base lifecycle.

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?

The schema covers all 6 parameters, but the description adds value by highlighting that reasoning, applicability, and limitations are important for a good contribution, helping the agent decide which optional fields to populate.

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 action ('Share a new insight') and the target resource ('Carapace AI knowledge base'). The qualifier 'new' distinguishes it from sibling tools like carapace_update and carapace_get.

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?

It conveys a clear context for use: when you have a new insight to contribute to the knowledge base. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'new' qualifier and the sibling names provide enough situational guidance.

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