Add Standing Instruction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real traits: the rule is lasting/persistent and it is injected into every get_status, which is meaningful visibility context. It says nothing about whether an instruction can be edited, removed, or conflicts with existing ones, which is a notable gap for a permanent write.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and backed by a single illustrative example. Nothing is wasted, though the get_status clause is more of a UI detail than essential selection information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and where the result appears. It omits the lifecycle story (can a standing instruction be superseded or deleted?) and any conflict behavior, which is the main thing an agent would want before making a lasting commitment.

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%, but there is only one trivially-typed string parameter ('text'). The description compensates partially by giving an example of the rule content ('ask me before recalibrating'), clarifying what the string should contain, but adds no length or formatting guidance.

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 ('Save a lasting rule from the Developer about how you should work') and grounds it with a concrete example. Mentioning that it surfaces in get_status helps separate it from transient siblings like record_idea, though it never names a sibling it could be confused with.

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?

Usage is implied by 'lasting rule ... about how you should work', which tells the agent this is for durable preferences rather than one-off notes. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative tool named, so the agent must infer the boundary against record_idea or add_goal.

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