library_context_protect

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

With no readOnlyHint, the tool is indeed a write/persist operation, consistent with descriptions of others like library_shelve. The description adds context beyond annotations: 'remains eligible for every governed prompt until released' reveals persistence duration. It also mentions 'protected' and 'critical', which implies weight. However, it does not detail failure modes, idempotency, or implications of multiple books, but this is reasonably rich for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Single sentence, concise, front-loaded with the action ('Persist') and resource ('critical instructions, decisions, active plans, or unresolved state'). No fluff, yet packs essential notion of persistence across prompts. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Despite having many parameters (11), the description suffices given the complexity: it fully explains the purpose and lifecycle (persistent until release). Output schema absent, but the return is unspecified; the description doesn't need to explain output. The tool's function is clearly mapped to its name and purpose. High completeness given the abstract context.

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 only 9%, meaning the description adds meaning beyond schema. The description implies the purpose of 'content' (critical instructions, decisions) but does not elaborate on parameters like 'importance', 'token_budget', 'role', or 'label'. It does explain the concept of 'protected context' that is preserved for every prompt. Given low coverage (9%), the description sets the conceptual framing but leaves parameter-specific details to the schema names. This is a moderate compensatory effort.

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 clearly states that the tool persists critical items (instructions, decisions, plans, unresolved state) as protected context. The verb 'Persist' plus specific resources (instructions, decisions, plans) distinguishes it from siblings like library_shelve or library_context_commit, and the phrase 'remains eligible for every governed prompt until released' clarifies the lifecycle.

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?

The description implies usage: persist critical context that must survive across prompts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context signals include sibling tools like library_context_release (opposite action) and library_context_prepare/commit (different actions). The term 'until released' alludes to the release tool, and 'protected context' differentiates from unprotected context. However, it lacks explicit 'use this when...' or 'don't use for...' guidance.

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