add_heuristic

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes 'storage-backed' and a default confidence, but omits side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites duplicates), error handling, success/failure indicators, or any constraints like rate limits or authorization requirements.

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 sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with core purpose, then additional behavioral notes. Every sentence adds unique value.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description fails to explain what the tool returns (likely the created heuristic), how to handle errors, or how it integrates with sibling tools. Missing return value and full parameter handling make it incomplete for a confident inference.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'id' parameter (content-addressed format for idempotency) and confirms the default for 'initialConfidence'. However, other parameters like 'agentId', 'priority', and 'importance' lack additional context beyond the schema. With 71% schema coverage, the description's contribution is modest but helpful.

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?

Clearly states 'Register a new condition→action heuristic' with a specific verb and resource. Lacks explicit differentiation from sibling heuristics tools like 'match_heuristics' or 'remove_heuristic', but the action 'register' implies creation, making it distinguishable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions idempotency via explicit ID but does not clarify when such an ID is necessary or how it interacts with other tools. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites given.

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