crbro_consolidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the side effects: persists all new knowledge, logs the session summary, recalculates topic heat scores, and updates the manifest. It also discloses the severe consequence of not calling it: 'this entire session's knowledge is permanently lost.' This is strong behavioral transparency, though it doesn't mention return values or reversible/irreversible nature.

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 more verbose than necessary. It repeats the same urgency multiple times ('CALL BEFORE SESSION ENDS', 'before the conversation ends', 'Failing to consolidate means...') and uses a warning emoji plus ALL CAPS. While the information is valuable, it could be tightened to two or three sentences without losing impact.

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?

Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: when to call it, what it accomplishes, why it is mandatory, and what to provide. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the intended scenario, though it doesn't discuss edge cases like repeated calls or partial failures.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter 'summary' as 'Summary of the session being consolidated' (100% schema coverage). The description adds minor guidance by saying 'Always provide a meaningful summary of what was accomplished,' which reinforces content quality but does not significantly expand beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Consolidate the brain at end of session.' It identifies the specific action (consolidate), the resource (the brain), and the timing (end of session). It also enumerates what consolidation does (persists knowledge, logs session summary, recalcs heat scores, updates manifest), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual pieces (e.g., crbro_learn, crbro_session_log).

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'CALL BEFORE SESSION ENDS' and 'if ANY significant work was done (code changes, decisions made, new information learned).' It also instructs the agent to always provide a meaningful summary. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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