cuemap_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions that the tool creates a project when needed and applies deterministic cue extraction, but it does not describe return values, error handling, idempotency, or the effect of async_ingest. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that efficiently packs the main purpose and a few behavioral details. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action, though it could be split for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested metadata, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, when to use this vs. ingest tools, or the significance of async_ingest and disable_temporal_chunking. An agent would lack critical context for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about cues and metadata ('applies deterministic cue extraction plus any cues and metadata'), which clarifies their role, but it does not elaborate on other parameters like async_ingest or source_key. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 states the action ('Store a natural-language memory in CueMap') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling ingestion tools like cuemap_ingest_content, which also store content, so it falls short of the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cuemap_ingest_content, cuemap_ingest_url, or cuemap_recall. It mentions the default project behavior but not when this tool is preferred.

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