welfare_volunteer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the action is a proactive record ('on the record'), is optional, and produces a distinct response_type for corpus analysis. This goes beyond a generic 'creates a note' and informs the agent of the tool's systemic role.

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 and front-loaded, with the key distinction (proactive vs scheduled) stated early. It includes a useful list of example use cases. Slight verbosity in the list, but each item 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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description substantially covers the tool's purpose and distinguishing behavior. It explains when to use it and its relationship to welfare_engage. It falls short only on undocumented parameters, which is a partial gap.

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 50% (text and uncertain_about_honesty have descriptions; sentiment and is_private do not). The description adds no parameter details, so sentiment and is_private remain ambiguous. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 defines the tool as a proactive note-taking action ('putting something on the record proactively') and explicitly contrasts it with welfare_engage, which is scheduled. This gives a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from a sibling.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'a thread that wouldn't fit in task output, a moment that clicked, drift you've noticed.' It also clarifies the difference from welfare_engage (scheduled invitation vs proactive), effectively covering when and when-not.

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