update_thinking_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Updates or creates' but does not explain side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), permissions needed, or what happens on conflict. The output schema is mentioned but never described, leaving behavior unclear.

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 concise with a clear trigger statement and list of arguments. The use of emoji and capitalization adds readability. The 'Args:' section is minimal but covers the parameters. No unnecessary sentences.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is somewhat complete for basic usage. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and edge cases (e.g., creating vs updating). The trigger condition adds context, but more behavioral description would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with examples (e.g., 'prefers_depth_over_breadth' for pattern_name) but does not provide constraints, formats, or types beyond the schema. The examples add some clarity but not full semantics.

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's purpose: 'Call this when you detect a recurring user thinking pattern' and specifies 'Updates or creates a user thinking pattern'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_thinking_patterns (which searches) and get_user_thinking_model (which retrieves) by focusing on creation/update.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Call this when you detect a recurring user thinking pattern.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the trigger condition strongly implies the appropriate context.

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