learn_project_convention

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states 'store', implying persistence, but does not explain overwrite behavior, idempotency semantics (despite an idempotency_key parameter), or any preconditions. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, which is positive. However, for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, it is under-specified and lacks structural elements like a note on return values or usage context.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the minimal description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it handles duplicates, or how it relates to retrieval tools like 'get_project_conventions'. The description alone leaves major gaps.

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 provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it only repeats the general purpose. No value is added beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Learn and store') and the resource ('project-specific conventions'), which is specific enough. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'store_conventions_batch' or 'get_project_conventions', so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools like 'store_conventions_batch' for bulk operations.

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