ambiguity_create

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It only says 'Create', implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with no waste, but the structure is flat and does not organize information (e.g., parameter descriptions, usage context). It is concise but under-specified rather than well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, 6 required, no schema descriptions) and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It only addresses one parameter and provides no context on return values, typical usage, or differentiation from sibling memory tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 9 parameters. It only explains the 'impact' field (values and blocking semantics). The other required parameters (title, statement, tags, question, interpretations) and optional ones are completely undocumented, leaving agents to guess their content and format.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Create an ambiguity memory'), which is specific enough. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like assumption_create or gotcha_create; an agent cannot tell when this is the right choice without more context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The impact parameter note ('high/critical = blocking') hints at a decision factor but does not explain when an ambiguity memory is appropriate compared to other memory types.

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