shelve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses replica queueing behavior, exact success replies ('filed <id>' / 'revised <id>'), refusal categories (no fitting shelf, near-duplicate, over-length body), and the one_thing_because requirement. This is far beyond the minimum for a write operation and gives the agent accurate expectations for side effects and errors.

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 dense paragraph, but every sentence carries useful information and the main operation is front-loaded. Some semicolon-heavy refusal clauses could be more readable, but there is no filler or redundant restating of the schema. It earns its length through behavioral and routing detail.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains input requirements, output strings, refusal behavior, queue behavior, and the alternative tool. The rich schema fills in the remaining parameter-level details, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic constraints beyond the schema, such as the ~600-character threshold for one_thing_because and the fact that id means correction rather than new filing. It does not restate every parameter, but the schema handles those details; the description enhances the most decision-critical semantics.

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 specific action and resource: it "files one new entry on an EXISTING shelf, or corrects one by id." It also actively distinguishes itself from the code lane and from the remember sibling, so an agent can tell which lane this belongs to. The core operation is unambiguous and not a tautology of the tool name.

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?

The description gives explicit routing guidance: "Use remember instead for facts about code or how to work, never for the owner's own life." It also states what shelve cannot do (create a shelf) and instructs the agent to ask the owner when no existing shelf fits. This is clear when-and-when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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