Rewrite a recruit's onboarding brief

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the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that replacement is wholesale, that the superseded copy is snapshotted to briefings/<n>.md so nothing is lost, and that the persona and memory remain untouched. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects.

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 four sentences with no filler: it fronts the core action, adds the snapshot safety detail, gives concrete invocation cues, and closes with exclusions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter write tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the action, the behavior toward old data, triggers, and non-targets. It does not describe what a successful response looks like or any permission requirements, which is a minor gap given how much is already disclosed.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have detailed descriptions, especially 'briefing' with its content specification. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replace a recruit's onboarding brief wholesale.' It also distinguishes the tool from persona-related siblings by explicitly saying the persona and memory are untouched, and contrasts with revision-style operations via 'wholesale' replacement.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: when the user says 're-onboard <name>' or when the existing brief has become misleading. It also implies when not to use it by clarifying the persona and memory are not affected, but it does not name alternative tools such as update_persona or brief_compact directly.

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