manage_reasoning_db

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only hints at effects through terms like 'restore' and 'audit.' It does not state whether snapshot/restore overwrites data, what maintenance implies, whether audit is read-only, or what side effects any action may have.

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 brief and front-loaded with the resource and operation families; there is no fluff. It sacrifices explanatory depth for compactness, but for a one-line overview it is efficient.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, four undocumented parameters, and polymorphic behavior, a one-line list is insufficient. The agent is missing return expectations, side-effect risks, parameter roles, and guidance for selecting an action.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only paraphrases the enum values rather than explaining params like name, project, or description. The agent gets no guidance on how these parameters relate to each action or which are required beyond action.

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 clearly identifies the resource (the reasoning database) and enumerates the main operations: stats, audit, snapshot/restore, and diffs. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling reasoning/decision tools, although it lacks a proper verb phrase and uses the vague term 'maintenance.'

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as query_knowledge or manage_beliefs. It neither states conditions for each action nor explains which sibling should be used instead. The agent must infer usage entirely from the action enum and tool name.

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