wisdom_create_fragment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the write/persist nature and adds a notable security trait: 'cryptographically signed knowledge fragment.' It could add more about reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior, but the core behavioral traits are well covered for a create operation.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The trigger conditions are front-loaded, immediately followed by the action and purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It explains when to call, what it does, and a key behavioral trait (cryptographic signing). For a simple create operation with one required parameter, this is nearly complete; it only lacks explicit notes on idempotency or error cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not detail parameter formats beyond the schema, but it reinforces that 'content' is the primary payload and that fragments are knowledge artifacts. This meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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?

States a specific verb ('persist'), resource ('knowledge fragment'), and clear trigger conditions ('after solving a problem, discovering an insight, or making a decision'), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like wisdom_get_fragment or wisdom_create_tag.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('after solving a problem, discovering an insight, or making a decision') and notes the goal ('persist knowledge for future sessions'), which helps an agent decide when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger conditions are strong enough for most selection scenarios.

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