boost_desire

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

The description explains the mechanism (simulates dopamine response) and the trigger, but does not disclose potential side effects, permanence, or prerequisites for the boost. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it only partially fulfills it.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action. The third sentence is somewhat redundant with the first but overall concise and readable.

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 two-parameter tool, the description gives purpose and trigger but omits return behavior or side effects. No output schema exists, so a bit more detail on the effect would improve completeness, but it remains adequate.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters, including value meanings for amount and reference to desire_config.json for desire_name. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 boosts a desire level in response to novelty/surprise, using dopamine/prediction error framing. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on increasing desire due to unexpectedness, whereas satisfy_desire likely reduces/fulfills and get_desires reads.

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?

Explicit trigger condition is given: 'Call when you feel surprised or encounter unexpected info.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, so not a 5.

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