personal_preflight_turn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: it persists a turn receipt and enforces capture of personal data across request forms. It does not explain side effects beyond persistence, failure modes, or whether it blocks or merely flags content, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact and front-loaded, with two sentences that each add information: what the tool is and what it forces. It is appropriately sized, though the phrasing is somewhat dense.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, and the description omits parameter semantics and the relationship to sibling tools. It explains purpose and a key behavior, but an agent would still be uncertain about how to fill the required fields and what will happen after the call.

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 explain the parameters. It only implies that 'text' is the current user message and never addresses 'turn_id' or 'conversation_id'. This leaves most parameter meaning to inference.

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 identifies a concrete function: a mandatory content preflight for the current user message, and it adds that it persists a turn receipt and enforces capture of personal categories. This distinguishes it from sibling capture tools even though it does not name one directly.

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 word 'mandatory' and the statement that capture is required even when the request is polishing/summarizing/image viewing give some guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with siblings like personal_capture_user_turn or personal_finalize_capture, leaving the exact pipeline placement implied.

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