create_thought

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new thought with optional visual properties,' omitting critical traits such as whether existing thoughts are overwritten, permission requirements, return values, or side effects. The low behavioral transparency could lead to incorrect invocations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is informative, with no redundancy. It earns its place by conveying the action, resource, and a distinguishing feature (visual properties) 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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to mention what the tool returns, error scenarios, or dependencies (e.g., brainId default behavior). Important aspects like linking behavior (sourceThoughtId+relation) are not described, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value by referring to 'optional visual properties' (backgroundColor, foregroundColor), but this is already evident from the schema. The description does not explain parameter interdependencies like sourceThoughtId and relation.

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 'Create a new thought with optional visual properties' clearly states the action (create) and resource (thought), and distinguishes from siblings like update_thought by mentioning optional visual properties. However, it does not specify what a 'thought' is in this context, which might be unclear to an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_thought or create_link. Given the sibling tools, the agent would benefit from explicit conditions (e.g., 'Use this to create a new thought; for linking existing thoughts, use create_link instead'). The absence of such guidance forces the agent to rely on heuristics.

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