knitbrain_record_learning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Record', implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwrite, append), authentication needs, or any constraints. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could be structured to list parameters more clearly. Still, it earns its place without excess.

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 recording tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate context. It explains the gist but lacks details on what constitutes 'non-obvious' or how tags are applied, leaving some gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It merely lists parameter names ('summary + lesson + tags') without adding meaning beyond the schema. The purpose of 'lesson' or 'tags' is not elaborated, leaving ambiguity.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'non-obvious project learning', and specifies the content (summary + lesson + tags) and purpose (for future sessions). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'knitbrain_get_learning' (retrieval) and 'knitbrain_search_learnings' (search).

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 implies use when there is a non-obvious learning to persist, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. The context from sibling tool names provides some differentiation, but the description lacks explicit guidance.

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