superpos_create_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains parameter formats (key, value, scope, ttl) but does not disclose what happens on key conflicts (overwrite vs. error), required permissions, or side effects. This lack of conflict behavior and error conditions limits transparency.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) and omits hive_id, which is an information gap. Still, it is efficient and minimally verbose.

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 5 parameters and the presence of nested objects and output schema, the description covers key, value, scope, and ttl, but omits hive_id. It doesn't address default behaviors or edge cases like TTL expiration. While much is covered, the missing parameter and behavioral context reduce 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes key (dotted name), value (JSON), scope (hive/organization/agent), and ttl (duration/ISO8601), covering 4 of 5 parameters. Only hive_id is omitted. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Store a knowledge entry shared with other agents,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It further differentiates itself by explaining the key format (dotted, domain-scoped) and scope options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search, list, or 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 context on when to use the tool (for creating knowledge entries), but it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use alternatives like superpos_update_knowledge or superpos_search_knowledge. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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