mind_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether entries persist, are deduplicated, are indexed for recall, require a pre-existing library, or what happens on conflict — all relevant for a memory write tool.

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 phrase is a single front-loaded clause with zero waste, which is good structurally. But it is so terse that it tips into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two required parameters whose relationship (library + content) is unstated, the description is too thin for a write tool in a large sibling set. An agent needs at least the library prerequisite and the intended scope of "memory entry" to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents library, content, and source, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no extra meaning, such as format or constraints on the required library or content fields.

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 verb and resource ("Add a memory entry"), which is enough to know it creates a memory. However, it gives no differentiation from the many sibling write tools such as mind_fact_add, mind_create, mind_vault_store, mind_learn, or mind_ingest, so an agent cannot tell which add-path this is.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative among the crowded add/store siblings. The agent is left to guess whether this is the right insertion tool.

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