compile_brief

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description earns credit by explaining the destruction: on target collision it auto-supersedes the prior brief via the D-12 supersede chain. It also discloses the wikilink footer enforcement and DeliveryAdapter write path. Missing only return/error shape nuance.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the paragraph is dense with opaque internal references (D-10, D-11, D-12, 'Phase 2 supersede chain') that consume space an external agent cannot decode. Every sentence is doing work, but the jargon lowers scannability.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the write target, the fallback ladder, link-footer enforcement, and collision semantics. It stops short of describing the return value or structured-error shape, but the behavioral picture is largely complete.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by situating prepared_text as the D-10 tier-3 fallback and max_tokens as a ladder hint, which clarifies how these two parameters interact at runtime.

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 ('Compile a brief from caller-supplied source documents') and names the sink destination. An agent can distinguish this from get_brief (retrieve) or assemble_dossier (compose a multi-bundle dossier) without opening either schema.

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 rich context about the internal LLM resolution ladder and collision handling, but no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_brief, assemble_dossier, or write_note. Usage is implied by the mechanics rather than routed against alternatives.

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