learn

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

Annotations already say openWorldHint is false, idempotentHint is true, and destructiveHint is false. The description adds useful behavioral detail: structured content splits into sections sharing a docid, each with level and parent, and replace matching follows title/document/heading rules. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but about 100 words, and it front-loads the core purpose before giving storage rules and replacement semantics. Every sentence contributes practical guidance, with no wasted repetition.

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 large sibling family, the description gives sufficient context about why to perform the operation and how content and replace behave. The main gap is that it does not explicitly explain the role of sectionType relative to skill- and agent-scoped sibling tools, which would make it fully self-contained.

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 already high. The description adds semantic value by explaining why tags matter, how content splitting behaves, and how replace matches titles against documents or heading paths, which the schema descriptions do not fully convey.

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 names a clear action and resource: storing durable knowledge in the agent's second brain, with concrete examples like decisions, corrections, and facts. This distinguishes it from read/query tools such as retrieve, recall, and search.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on what to store (facts that cost real effort to find), what not to store (code/docs content, chat summaries, guesses, secrets), and directs corrections to revise instead of duplicating knowledge. It does not explicitly address the general/member scopes such as skill-learn or agent-learn, but sectionType helps cover that gap.

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