remember_fragile_file

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of affecting future sessions with guardrails. However, it lacks details on persistence, reversibility, or side effects. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but is only partially sufficient.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the core purpose and effect.

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?

Adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for complex use. Lacks information on workflow context, return value, and how this interacts with other tools like check_before_editing.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. It does not explain file_path format, reason purpose, or severity options beyond the schema's defaults.

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 action (mark a file as fragile/risky) and the effect (future guardrail warning or block). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remember_decision and remember_failed_attempt by focusing specifically on file fragility.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_before_editing or remember_failed_attempt. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites mentioned.

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