personal_add_reflection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, and it does state that a new document is created and entity links are added. It does not mention whether links are appended or replaced, whether permissions are needed, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. The core action and linking behavior are front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential create-and-link behavior. However, the unclear 'provenance, R5' qualifier and the lack of detail about optional related_ids leave some ambiguity for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'texto crudo' to the text parameter and 'entidades' to related_ids, but it does not explicitly say that related_ids are integer entity IDs, that they are optional, or how the linking is performed.

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 states a concrete action: 'Guarda el texto crudo como documento' and the linking behavior 'lo enlaza a las entidades'. This makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear and distinguishes it from save-only or link-only siblings, though the meaning of 'provenance, R5' is not explained.

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 the use case: persist raw text as a document and link it to related entities. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tech_save, personal_link, or personal_upsert_entity, so an agent has to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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