mind_fact_add

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable lifecycle context (deprecated, removed in v2.0), but it never says whether calls still succeed, error, or no-op before removal — the key behavioral question for a deprecated endpoint. Additional context beyond the deprecation notice is absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste: deprecation, replacement, and removal timeline come first, with the actual function noted briefly at the end.

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?

For a deprecated stub with no output schema, the description gives the agent everything actionable: don't call it, call mind_fact instead. The only shortfall is not stating the runtime behavior of the deprecated call itself.

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?

Three required parameters (subject, predicate, object) with 0% schema description coverage and no enum or format hints. The description adds no meaning about what values these should take or how they relate to the knowledge graph, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 parenthetical states a specific verb+resource (add a knowledge graph fact), so the tool's function is identifiable despite the deprecation banner dominating the string. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming mind_fact as the replacement.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent not to use this tool and gives the exact alternative call (mind_fact(action="add")), plus the removal version. There is no ambiguity about when (never) or what to use instead.

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