Jobs-tools-knowledgeBase-addUserContext

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key side effects: 'Creates Zettelkasten notes for context content and stores references in user profile.' This reveals the write operations and integration. However, it doesn't mention reversibility, permissions, or the behavior of auto-classification failure. It adds some context beyond the schema but remains incomplete.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and then explain key outcomes. No redundant or filler content; every clause contributes 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 no output schema, so the description should ideally explain return values or expected results. It covers the main behavior and side effects but omits return format, error cases, and edge behaviors. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of annotations, this is only partially complete.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics—only mentioning 'auto-classification' which relates to the autoClassify parameter, but doesn't elaborate on category or context formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: 'Add user context from natural language with auto-classification.' It specifies the resource (user context) and the action (add), and adds behavioral details (creating Zettelkasten notes, storing references). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like createZettelkastenNote, though the 'from natural language' and 'user profile' aspects help distinguish.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for adding user context but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. It lacks the 'use this when' clarity needed for a tool with many siblings.

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