Record a goal, decision or principle

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds value beyond them: entries are attributed as coming from the MCP, and a human confirmation step is required before writing. It does not disclose whether repeats create duplicates (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or what the call returns, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it writes and its provenance first, then the human confirmation requirement, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries actionable information and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

For a 5-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, provenance, a workflow precondition and the key exclusion. It omits only secondary details such as duplicate handling and what a successful write returns.

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 text, type, projectId, rationale and confidence are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the three accepted type values already listed in the enum and says nothing about when to supply rationale or how confidence is interpreted, 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?

States a specific verb (adds) and resource (one goal, decision or principle to a project) with the scope qualifier 'one' making the granularity explicit. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling add_fact by restricting type to goal/decision/principle, but never names a sibling tool to route against.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not rule: 'Constraints are not accepted here: a hard constraint is a rule, and rules are changed by a person in Trood.' It also names the precondition (confirm exact wording with the person first) and says who must act instead, leaving nothing to inference.

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