add_instruction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Store' implies a persistent mutation, but the description does not say whether it overwrites, how duplicate aliases are handled, whether the entry is immediately searchable, or what is returned. The placeholder mention is the only real behavioral signal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that spends its words on the distinguishing element (templated snippets) rather than restating the name. Appropriately sized, though it could redirect to siblings in the same breath.

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?

Six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a write tool whose uniqueness/lookup contract is undocumented — an agent cannot tell from this description whether alias collisions are rejected, merged, or stored as duplicates, nor how stored placeholders are filled at retrieval.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema; the description's only added value is explaining the template/placeholder semantics of the command field. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb ('Store') plus specific resource ('command snippet or instruction recipe') and a distinguishing detail: placeholders like {{input}}. It separates itself from get_instruction/search_instructions by being the write side, but it never states how it differs from save_entry or save_entry_ref, which also store content.

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 statement of when to use this versus save_entry, save_entry_ref, or save_artifact, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent facing a write operation with many sibling write tools has to guess based on the name alone.

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