Publish library brief

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

Annotations already declare write, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context on top: validation of the packet against current data, quote-to-evidence binding, retry idempotency keyed on submission_key, the stale_brief failure mode, and the exact write scope ('under reach/briefs without applying labels or changing the assignment queue'). Immutability and the side-effect boundary are exactly the details annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then the routing rule, with no filler sentences. Some clauses are heavily packed ('Validates the exact packet against current data and binds quotes to supplied evidence'), but each carries distinct operational information rather than restating the name.

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 prerequisites, idempotency, failure handling, write location and side-effect boundaries. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly or interpret a failure appears to be missing.

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 every parameter (job_key, input_hash, input_packet, submission_key, document, citations, usage) is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the copy-unchanged contract for the packet/hash and the retry semantics of submission_key, but adds little syntax or format detail the schema does not already carry.

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 client-written daily brief as an immutable local artifact') plus the scope constraint that it is local and immutable. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling read_library_resource, so an agent can route between publish and read 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?

Gives an explicit gating precondition ('Use only for the user's requested brief job after get_library_brief_input') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('use read_library_resource to read a published brief'). It also handles an error path ('stale_brief requires fresh input'), so both the happy path and the retry path are described.

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