add_mistake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: '[WRITE ACTION]' flags mutation, 'Appends to existing mistakes' clarifies non-destructive additive semantics, and it notes the lesson can be optionally updated and that the full updated trade record is returned. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether appended tags can later be removed.

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 write-action flag and core behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by illustrative examples. Slightly long with three examples for a short description, but each example illustrates a distinct usage path (single tag, multi-tag + lesson, bare tag).

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 6-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mutation intent, append semantics, optional lesson update, and return payload ('full updated trade record'). Missing only permission/error behavior, which is a mild gap.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema; per the rubric the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that mistakes are appended (not replaced) and that lesson learning is optional, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb (tag/add) and resource (execution discipline mistakes on a trade), and enumerates concrete examples of mistake tags. It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_mistake_audit.

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?

Three example questions show realistic invocation contexts, including the optional lesson_learned and multi-mistake cases. However, it never states when not to use this tool or points to an alternative sibling (e.g. update_trade) for other edits.

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