classify

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden, and it does: it declares the write is narrow ('Writes only the kind - text, tags, ids and superseded status stay as they are'), states reversibility ('undone by classifying again'), and previews the return payload including unknown-id reporting and remaining backlog count.

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 action, then usage, then side effects and return shape, then args. Each sentence contributes something an agent cannot get from the schema - notably the range syntax and the undo semantics - with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the response usefully. Input format quirks, reversibility, and mutation scope are all covered, leaving no operational gap for an agent calling this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'ids' accepts comma-separated values and '376-380' range syntax, and 'kind' must be exactly one of the six listed values, with 'unsorted' documented as the undo operation rather than just another enum member.

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 and resource: setting the 'kind' of knowledge for existing entries. The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'remember' (which adds entries) and it references 'recall' as the source of candidates, but it never explicitly names the sibling it is not.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: run it on entries 'recall shows as "unsorted"', and notes the backlog can be worked incrementally. It is clear when to reach for it, though it offers no explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion.

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