brain_federate

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

Describes the copy operation, privacy constraint, domain filtering, and confidence threshold. Does not detail merge semantics or reversibility, but for a non-destructive knowledge transfer, this is reasonably transparent. No annotations to contradict.

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 plus a short example. First sentence states purpose, second distinguishes from sibling, third gives example. Front-loaded, no fluff, every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and parameter roles well. Lacks description of output/return value (no output schema) and error conditions. Does not mention side effects or post-invocation behavior. Adequate but could be more complete.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context by explaining domain values, default confidence (0.6), dry run preview, and includes an example call. Goes beyond schema by providing usage context.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'copy ... from source brain into your brain', identifies tool as private org knowledge transfer, and contrasts with syndicate_search (global, anonymous). Example shows concrete use case (new hire) and domain values. Clear differentiation from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for private org knowledge transfer within the same Cachly org or with shared source. Directly contrasts with syndicate_search as alternative for global, anonymous search. Provides prerequisite conditions and an example scenario.

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