Lexicon Note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the file is local and shared by every session (writes are globally visible), that updates mutate only means/craft/outcome/why while 'said' is immutable, and what the tool returns. It omits any permissions/rate-limit or concurrency caveats, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the body is organized as field:meaning pairs with concrete examples that earn their place. It is dense and reads as one long run-on paragraph, with some parenthetical examples that could be trimmed, but little is genuinely redundant.

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 nine-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core fields, allowed values, constraints, update semantics, and shared-file behavior. The output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out (it still notes them), and the undefined who/where/project params are the main residual gap.

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 documents six of nine params in detail: said (verbatim words), means (mapped system terms), craft (with a full enumerated role list absent from the schema), outcome (open|worked|partly|missed), id, and why. Only who, where, and project are left undefined, so it substantially but not fully closes the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Record what the person called something, and what it means.' The record-a-lexicon-entry purpose is clear. However it does not differentiate itself from the sibling lexicon_find/lexicon_view tools, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 clear update mode ('Update an entry with id=...; the words themselves never change') and an explicit exclusion ('Words about the work only: never record emotion, mood or health'). It even points at lexicon_view for locating the file. It stops short of saying when to record vs. when to look up, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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