vault_write_action

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

The description states that artifacts are stored in 'actions/' and are timestamped, but it does not disclose key behavioral details such as whether the operation is additive or overwrites existing data, what happens on duplicate titles, or any required permissions. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden.

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 description is concise: a brief purpose statement, a clarifying sentence about action artifacts, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameters, but it omits context such as prerequisites (e.g., whether the vault must exist), error handling, or the format of the return value (though an output schema exists). Given the tool's complexity (3 params, write operation), more context would improve completeness.

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?

The description includes an Args section that explains each parameter: title, content (markdown), and action_type with enumerated values (report, pr_brief, etc.). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, which only provides type and default. The schema coverage is 0%, making the description's parameter details essential.

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 the tool writes task outputs/reports to the CogOps Knowledge Vault and specifies the kinds of artifacts (PR briefs, answers, etc.). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling vault_write_belief, which likely serves a similar but different purpose.

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 provides context on what constitutes action artifacts and where they are stored, giving implicit guidance on when to use the tool. But it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, and does not differentiate from vault_write_belief or other write tools.

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