coc_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the append-only log property, cryptographic linking via SHA-256, and parameter-specific behaviors (commitment only used for session_end). However, it does not mention error states, idempotency, or rate limits, which could be critical.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, cryptographic detail, and an Args section. It is front-loaded with key information. However, some redundancy in explaining hashing could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 output schema declares return fields, the description covers all parameters and cryptographic behavior. It implicitly requires an existing chain (via coc_init) but does not mention this or other related tools. For a tool in a suite, explicit cross-referencing would enhance completeness.

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%, but the description provides thorough parameter explanations: lists allowed event_type values, clarifies data as free-form, notes agent default, and explains commitment/verification. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and enums.

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: 'Add an entry to an existing Chain of Consciousness chain.' It specifies the action (add), the resource (entry to a CoC chain), and includes unique details about cryptographic hashing for tamper-evidence, distinguishing it from siblings like coc_init or coc_verify.

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 explains parameters for special cases (commitment for session_end, verification for session_start) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like coc_init (initialize chain) or coc_verify (verify integrity). Usage context is implied but lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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