wisdom_type_fragment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a mutation ('assigns') and the mechanism ('TYPE tag relation'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the type replaces an existing one, whether multiple types are allowed, or what the operation returns, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the key usage instruction, then states the action and mechanism, making it easy to scan and act on.

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?

This is a simple tool with two straightforward parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the action, the timing, and the semantics sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps around idempotence and return value exist, but they are not critical for this low-complexity tool.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context by clarifying that fragment_type is a semantic type and providing examples, but it does not meaningfully enhance the schema's parameter explanations, so the 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 states a specific verb ('classify'), a concrete resource ('fragment'), and the result ('assigns a semantic type via TYPE tag relation'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling wisdom_tag_fragment by focusing on semantic types like QUESTION and ANSWER, so an agent can understand its role without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says when to call it: 'immediately after creating a fragment.' This gives clear contextual guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives like wisdom_tag_fragment, so it stops short of a full 5.

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