weave_reference

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to meet it. It does not say whether the record is persistent, whether it is idempotent when the same pair is recorded twice, whether the referenced skills must already exist, whether permission is required, or what happens on failure. For a state-mutating write tool, this is a serious gap.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than from efficiency. There is no structure indicating what is recorded or what the agent should supply.

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?

A three-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain inputs, persistence semantics, and effects. This one explains essentially nothing beyond the high-level intent, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly without guesswork.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The names goal, to_skill, and from_skill are ambiguous about direction (which skill is the composer versus the composed), whether goal is free text or an identifier, and whether any of the three are required given that zero are marked required.

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 gives a verb (record) and an object (a composition of one skill with another), so the agent can guess this persists a relationship between two skills. However, it never defines what a 'weave' is, never contrasts with siblings like weave_ask or register, and never says what gets recorded beyond the bare fact of composition.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as register or weave_ask despite those being present in the sibling list. The agent must infer that this is the recording step of some composition workflow.

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