Export a recruit as a hermes teammate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does an excellent job: it discloses that the room keeys the persona, the exported teammate points at history read-only, the OpenRouter key is never copied, and overwriting is refused. These are non-obvious side effects and guardrails that an agent needs to know before invoking the tool.

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?

Three sentences, every one earning its place: the first states the action and output, the second clarifies the side-effect model, and the third adds two critical safety constraints. The formatting with 'EXECUTE' and 'OpenRouter key' draws attention to high-stakes details without bloating the description.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete for correct invocation: what is written, where history is pointed, what is never copied, what is refused, and the required dry_run workflow. Nothing essential for calling it safely and correctly is missing.

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%, so the parameter descriptions already cover name, role, dry_run, and hermes_home. The description reinforces dry_run ('Run with dry_run first') and clarifies role's purpose ('role line for SOUL.md and the hermes roster'), but adds little beyond what the schema already states. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Write... out'), a specific resource ('a hired recruit'), and the concrete output artifacts (SOUL.md, profile.yaml, config.yaml, .env). It also explains the purpose ('so it can EXECUTE') and implicitly differentiates this from sibling tools like roster or update_persona by centering on export to a hermes-agent profile.

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 clear operational guidance: 'Run with dry_run first' and states that it refuses to overwrite an existing profile, which tells an agent the correct invocation sequence. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., only hired recruits), but the context is still clear enough to select this tool appropriately.

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