cite_object

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine domain behavior: what a citation on a FAMILY actually asserts (a couple claim) versus a person-level identity claim. It omits that repeated calls create duplicate citations (non-idempotent), a minor gap against the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb+scope, then progressively adds routing detail. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the family/person elaboration is dense and could be tightened slightly.

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?

No output schema exists and none is needed for an attach operation, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description completes the picture by mapping each object type to the claim it supports. It could note idempotency behavior on repeat calls, but otherwise nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's flat object_type list by explaining the semantic weight of each target type and which citation is preferred per object, adding real meaning to the object_type parameter.

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+resource ('Attach a citation to any object') and immediately scopes it against siblings: cite_event covers facts, cite_child_link covers parent-child links. An agent can route to this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (family-level and person-level claims that no event makes), when-not (prefer citing the specific event where one exists), and named alternatives (cite_event, cite_child_link). This is textbook routing guidance.

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