insight_add

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

The description explains that the insight is persisted as a TaskNote and will be surfaced in future task prompts alongside [LEARNING] notes, providing important side-effect information. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does so adequately.

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, with a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 explains the persistence and future impact of the insight. Given an output schema exists (not shown), the description is sufficiently complete, though it could mention potential constraints like idempotency or duplicate handling.

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 input schema has three required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by listing valid category values and implying content is the observation text. However, it does not elaborate on task_id format or content constraints.

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's action: 'Add a project insight for a task.' It specifies that insights are categorized observations and lists valid categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like insight_list and insight_remove.

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 when to use the tool (recording categorized observations) and lists valid categories, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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