brain_record_experience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies persistence-for-future-use via the 'vaccinate' framing, but never states that the record is stored, later surfaced by brain_consult, deduplicated, or that it is an irreversible write; no auth, confirmation, or rate-limit context is given.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded in one sentence, then a compact Args block; every line earns its place. The all-caps 'VACCINATE AGAINST MISTAKES' opener is rhetorical rather than informative, a minor style cost.

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 5-param write tool with an output schema, the description covers triggers and all parameters adequately. The remaining gap is relational: verified_snippet 'also saves a Golden Pattern' overlaps with the brain_record_golden_pattern sibling, and the description never resolves which tool an agent should pick.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: it explains each of the five arguments, gives concrete context examples ('php mysql utf8mb4', 'docker windows networking'), defines project as an identifier or 'global' (matching the default), and marks verified_snippet optional while noting its dual role as a Golden Pattern.

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 states a concrete verb+resource (record an experience) and enumerates the triggering situations: >=2 attempts fixing an error, an unexpected runtime pitfall, or the user saying 'grava isso'/'aprende isso'. It is clearly distinguishable from brain_list_rules or brain_stats, though the overlap with brain_record_golden_pattern is only hinted at rather than stated.

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?

Strong explicit trigger conditions ('Call this whenever you spent >= 2 attempts...') give an agent a clear activation rule. It does not state when NOT to use it, nor explicitly route between the near-siblings brain_record_rule and brain_record_golden_pattern, even though the verified_snippet argument touches the latter's territory.

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