ddflow_identify

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses idempotency, the silent-merge hazard of the tree-derived default ('merges several agents in one tree into one identity with no error'), and persistence behavior for stateless requests. It does not describe the response shape or any failure/error modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the trigger, then the counter-case, then the stateless caveat. Dense but each clause carries a rule; the final sentence about 2026-07-28 stateless requests is niche enough that it slightly dilutes the core message, keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone — and it covers identity semantics, timing, the subagent exception, and persistence rules. The one gap is that it never says what a successful call returns or how identity is later observed (beyond log-file naming), which an agent juggling sibling identity-related tools would benefit from.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: why the name matters (it attributes every claim, gate outcome and review), the distinctness requirement, and that omitting the value resets to the tree-derived default — a behavior with a consequence the bare schema does not spell out.

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 opening verb-and-resource statement — 'Declare WHO you are on this connection' — is specific and unambiguous, and the name-convention sentence explains what the value means. It differentiates itself from the many ddflow siblings by scope (connection identity) and by explicitly routing subagents to the `as_agent` parameter on other calls rather than to this tool.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition ('Call it first when 2+ agents or subagents work this repository at once') and an explicit exclusion ('A SUBAGENT sharing its parent's connection must NOT call this; it passes `as_agent` on each call instead'). The stateless-request branch tells the agent what to do instead when this tool is not the right mechanism.

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