guard_note

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: an 'agent' provenance tag is attached automatically, entries are durable, and 'lesson'-tagged entries survive the recent-entry cap by being re-injected into the session brief every turn. That persistence/rotation distinction is exactly the kind of effect an agent needs to know before writing. It stops short of saying whether repeated identical calls duplicate entries, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the two tag-behavior sentences each add distinct information. Minor waste from reStructuredText double backticks and the trailing rationale 'so the next similar situation starts from that outcome,' which restates the value of recording an outcome.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tag semantics are handled well. Still missing are the semantics of the required 'type' field and any statement separating this tool from guard_journal, which leaves real ambiguity for a three-parameter write 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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter load. It explains the 'tags' parameter well by naming the values 'lesson', 'satisfied', and 'dissatisfied' and their effects. But the required 'type' parameter is never mentioned at all, and since no parameter has an enum, an agent must guess its valid vocabulary — a significant residual gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: journaling an agent-authored entry with a durable 'agent' provenance tag. That is far more concrete than the tool name alone. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling guard_journal, which reads like it could do the same thing, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate on the description.

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 real guidance on how to use tags: 'lesson' for precedents that get re-injected each turn, 'satisfied'/'dissatisfied' for recording owner reactions. But that is guidance on tag choice, not on when to call guard_note rather than guard_journal or guard_recall, so the when-to-use signal is only implied.

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