Save coding conventions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the merge semantics: 'Rules are merged by category+rule text; existing rules are preserved unless replace is true.' This reveals non-obvious behavior that prevents data loss and clarifies how updates work. It could add more (e.g., return values or side effects), but the key behavioral detail is present.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the main use, the second covers amendment, and the third clarifies merge/replace behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description plus schema provide solid coverage. The description addresses the most critical ambiguity (merge vs replace) and the schema covers parameter formats. It omits minor details like confirmation of inferred rules, but the schema notes that. Overall, sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the merge key ('category+rule text') and the meaning of 'replace' in context, which informs how to use the conventions and replace parameters correctly. This goes beyond what the schema alone states, earning a 4.

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 primary function: 'Record the coding conventions the human described.' It also specifies the extendable use case ('add or amend rules later'), which differentiates it from siblings like get_conventions and start_convention_interview. The verb 'record' and resource 'coding conventions' are explicit and unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: record new conventions and amend existing ones later. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but sibling context (e.g., start_convention_interview, get_conventions) implies distinctions. The phrase 'Also use this to add or amend rules later' gives direct guidance for repeat usage.

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