n2_mimir_lesson_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two valuable traits: the payload contract (soul-evidence/v1) and the validation posture ('Checks provenance/integrity, not the truth of authored observations'). It omits what happens on validation failure, whether the write is idempotent, and what is returned or overwritten on retry.

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 front-loaded sentences with the purpose and storage path first, then the contract, then the validation caveat. The long enumeration 'method, observation, outcome and applied flag' is dense but each item constrains the required payload, so little is wasted.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should be doing more: it should state error behavior, idempotency via requestId, and the effect of a successful record. It covers the preconditions well but leaves the write's consequences and failure modes unspecified.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate and does so partially: it explains the project/artifact path relationship and that lessonId must match lesson/work identity. It says nothing about sessionId or agent, leaving two of six parameters entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Record') and a specific resource ('application evidence'), plus the storage location pattern data/evidence/<project>/<artifact>. That is enough to distinguish it from sibling write tools like n2_work_log or n2_entity_upsert, though the terms 'soul-evidence/v1' and 'durable work' are internal jargon an agent may not resolve.

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 supplies preconditions ('Requires soul-evidence/v1 JSON', 'matching lesson/work identity', 'completed durable work'), which implies when the tool is applicable. It never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it versus siblings such as n2_mimir_lesson_review or n2_work_log, so routing must be inferred.

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