cogvault_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious trait: the card is only searchable on the next recall, implying indexing latency. However, it omits what happens on duplicate content (overwrite vs. append), permission requirements, persistence guarantees, and any return value — meaningful gaps for a write tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the guidance for the optional parameters. No filler and nothing duplicated from the schema descriptions.

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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the persistence model, and the purpose of both optional fields. It lacks only edge-case semantics such as duplicate handling, which is a minor gap rather than an omission an agent would trip over.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale the schema lacks: `type` exists so the card can be filtered on recall, and `title` becomes the filename. That explains why the optional params matter rather than just restating them.

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?

States a concrete verb ("Save a fact") and resource ("persistent memory as a Markdown card"), plus the downstream consequence that it becomes searchable on recall. It contrasts functionally with cogvault_recall (write vs. retrieve) but never names the sibling, so it falls short of the explicit differentiation a 5 requires.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this when it wants a fact retained. There is no statement of when not to use it (e.g., duplicates, updates to existing cards) and no explicit alternative routing despite having exactly one sibling.

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