add_procedure

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses auto-generation of id when omitted and mentions optional fallback chains, but does not cover permissions, destructiveness, or side effects of creating procedural memory.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and key behaviors without fluff or redundant information.

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 a creation tool with nested structure, the description covers main aspects like ordering and fallback. However, it does not mention the return value or confirmation, and could better differentiate from related procedure tools.

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?

With 80% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining that steps are 1-indexed and have optional fallback chains, and that id is auto-generated if omitted, providing context 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 verb 'persist' and resource 'procedural memory', and distinguishes from semantic facts and episodic events. However, it does not differentiate from sibling procedure tools like refine_procedure or get_procedure.

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 implies when to use this tool (for procedural memory) by contrasting with semantic facts and episodic events, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like refine_procedure.

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