diana_experience_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that entries land as unverified drafts, that only the user can approve them, and that creation is refused on similarity unless forced. It omits where entries are persisted and whether drafts are visible to other tools/users.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome and the dedupe rule before the argument list, and the content guidance (observed/why/fix/verification) is genuinely actionable. The Args block is long but each line earns its place; only minor trimming is possible.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers creation semantics, refusal behavior, and every field, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Minor gaps remain around storage location and the handoff to verification/review siblings.

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% across 16 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does: every parameter is explained with purpose and concrete examples (trigger format including the 're:' regex prefix, tag and manual examples, id naming rules, source semantics, diana_version default). This is meaning the schema cannot supply.

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 and resource (record a lesson in the experience handbook) plus the resulting state (draft, 未验证, user-approved later). It also implicitly separates the create path from the update path by saying 'update that one instead' when a similar entry exists.

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 clear operational context: dedupe refusal on similar title/shared trigger, the fallback of updating the existing entry, and the force=True escape hatch. It does not name the sibling tools (diana_experience_update, diana_experience_verify) that implement the follow-up steps, so routing still requires a small inference.

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