engram_create_wing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description says nothing about name uniqueness, side effects on existing wings, permissions, or what happens on duplicate names — a significant gap for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and an unexplained domain metaphor among many related siblings, the description leaves essential information missing: what a wing is, how it relates to rooms, and what a caller gets back.

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 and does not. The required 'name' parameter is only weakly implied by the sentence, and the optional 'description' parameter is not mentioned at all.

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?

It gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new wing'), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, 'wing in the château' is unexplained domain metaphor, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling engram_create_room or clarifies the wing/room hierarchy an agent must understand to use it correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create a wing versus a room (engram_create_room), no stated prerequisites, and no mention of whether wings are containers for rooms. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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