Learn the artist's house conventions from a live TD subtree

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

The description clearly discloses that while the TD side is read-only, the tool mutates vault files, and specifies the default behavior (writes Memory/conventions.md, may merge into Memory/style.md). It also explains how to avoid writes with dry_run=true and mentions the TDMCP_VAULT_PATH requirement. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 four sentences and richly informative, front-loading the main purpose. While slightly long, each sentence contributes distinct value: purpose, side effects, dry-run, alternatives, and requirements.

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 output schema, the description compensates by stating the return value ('sampled conventions plus write flags'). It covers prerequisites, side effects, and alternatives. The tool is complex, but the description provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds context about the overall workflow and explicitly mentions dry_run, but does not add new semantic meaning 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 identifies the tool's purpose: reading a TD subtree, inferring conventions, and writing results to an Obsidian vault. It uses specific verbs and resources (read, infer, write) and distinguishes itself from learn_from_my_corpus and load_session_profile by naming them as alternatives.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use learn_from_my_corpus when the source is already in the vault and load_session_profile when you only need to consume cached preferences.' It also mentions a dry_run mode for inspection, making the decision context clear.

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