n2_mimir_study_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two real traits: appends are idempotent, and outcome/type are self-reported rather than verified effects — but it says nothing about duplicate-entry handling, permission needs, or what happens if the session does not exist.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the most important caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than merely tight.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent still cannot tell what sourceRef or action should contain or what a successful append returns.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only hints at entryId (idempotent append) and the meaning of outcome/type; project, sessionId, action, sourceRef, and agent remain undefined anywhere.

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 and resource: "Append one reported study entry idempotently." That is clear enough to distinguish it from session-lifecycle siblings like n2_mimir_study_start/end, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as n2_mimir_study_end or the lesson tools. The requirement for a sessionId only implies the tool belongs inside an open study session.

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