blueprint_fact_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it does not say whether facts are deduplicated, whether fact_id must be unique, whether a bad unit is rejected, or what is returned on success. The only behavioral hint is that values are 'kept in cm, kg, deg or count'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but for a tool with seven required parameters the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

Seven required parameters, 29% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema — the description answers almost none of the questions an agent needs resolved before calling this write tool (source linkage, fact_id semantics, unit mismatch, error behavior).

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 only 29% (unit and quote documented), so the description should compensate for gun, fact_id, value, page and source_id — it does not. Worse, its unit list ('cm, kg, deg or count') is narrower than and inconsistent with the schema's 'as printed: in, mm, cm, lb, oz, kg, count...', which could mislead an agent about valid inputs.

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 verb+resource are explicit: it records a fact alongside the page and quote it came from. It does not, however, distinguish itself from look-alike siblings such as blueprint_source_add, blueprint_figure_add or blueprint_measure, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 statement of when to add a fact versus calling blueprint_numbers, blueprint_measure or blueprint_figure_add, and no prerequisites (e.g. a source must exist first). Usage is only implied by the name.

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