drop_tip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: project scoping, deduplication by normalized text, and separation from FACT/BELIEF governance. It does not mention duplicate-handling failure modes or whether the operation is idempotent, but the most important behavioral traits are present.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the primary action first, then packs scope and governance details efficiently.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers scope and governance but leaves several call-critical aspects to the schema, such as identity requirements and evidence_refs quarantine behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 67%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds only 'short practical' context for text and does not clarify the ambiguous kind enum values or binding_token semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 names the resource ('short practical TIP'), the action ('Drop'), and its distinguishing traits: project-scoped, deduplicated by normalized text, and separate from FACT/BELIEF governance. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like record_fact and record_belief.

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 contextual guidance by noting TIPs are separate from FACT/BELIEF governance, implying this tool is for practical tips rather than facts or beliefs. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer drop_tip over related siblings like tips, tip_useful, or moderate_tip, nor gives exclusions.

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