observe_preference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait not present in the schema: that repeated observations reinforce confidence. It fails to cover whether this requires auth (an api_key param exists), whether re-observation creates duplicates or merges, or how confidence interacts with repeats.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the reinforcement behavior. No wasted words, though the sparseness is arguably under-specification rather than disciplined concision for an 8-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description bears full explanatory load for an 8-parameter mutation tool. It omits category semantics, confidence meaning, evidence format, project scoping, and auth requirements, leaving the agent without enough to call it precisely.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The example ('Use pnpm, not npm') loosely illustrates the required 'statement' field, but agent, api_key, project, category, evidence, task_type, and confidence are entirely unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Record a user preference/taste/convention') and even gives a concrete example, so the purpose is immediately clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from closely related siblings like 'remember' and 'record_decision', which also persist knowledge.

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 and no indication of how this differs from 'remember' or 'record_decision'. 'Repeats reinforce confidence' is a behavioral note, not an instruction about when this tool should be selected over its siblings.

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