personal_add_followup

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 does reveal that the tool registers follow-ups with context and that due items are later checked by a Personal Understanding Skill, which is useful. It does not describe mutation effects, duplicate handling, idempotency, or what happens when due_at is null, but the core persistence-and-check behavior 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action first and then the relevant follow-up behavior, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 seven-parameter write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this is under-specified. The agent would still need to infer the meaning of several parameters and operational details such as return behavior and due handling.

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%, so the description must compensate for seven undocumented parameters. It only alludes to context and due behavior; id, due_rule, priority, and source_refs remain semantically unexplained. One sentence is insufficient to replace absent parameter documentation.

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 centers on registering a pending follow-up/revisit and adds the lifecycle behavior that it will be actively checked when due. This is specific enough to differentiate its core purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from personal_add_record or other personal_* write tools.

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 phrase '登记有上下文的待回访问题' implies the tool is for storing context-carrying follow-ups rather than immediate actions, and the due-check behavior gives a signal about when it applies. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as personal_add_record or personal_add_feedback.

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