queue_durable_fact

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

The description discloses the two modes of operation (remote write vs. local queue) and mentions later flush, but it lacks details on queue flush triggers, error handling, idempotency, or side effects. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise with one front-loaded sentence. While efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail on parameters and complex behavior, making it slightly under-specified.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, conditional logic, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter definitions, output details, and offline queue behavior specifics, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The description provides no information about the five parameters (agent_name, entity, attribute, text, confidence). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on how to fill these fields, making the tool hard to use correctly.

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 the tool's purpose: writing a durable fact with conditional behavior based on online status. It distinguishes from siblings like sync_offline_facts by specifying the remote vs. local queue logic, though it could contrast more explicitly.

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 implies when to use (when online, write remotely; when offline, queue locally), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to alternatives like sync_offline_facts or direct writes.

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