references_pick

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses a write side effect ('saves to their taste log'), its downstream consequence ('future suggestions lean their way'), and the return payload ('returns the take/url/image to build against'). It stops short of stating failure behavior or whether repeated picks are idempotent, so not a 5.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and packs the side effect, return value, and a concrete example without filler. The parenthetical example is useful rather than decorative.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the persistence effect, and the return value. It is incomplete on the intent parameter and on error/duplicate handling, which matters given zero structured documentation.

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 carries the full burden. It implicitly documents id ('which reference') and note ('any note like "more like this but warmer"'), but the third parameter intent is never mentioned or explained, leaving a meaningful gap.

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+resource: 'Record which reference the user chose'. The added clause about saving to a taste log and returning the take/url/image makes the action concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling references_add, which is the closest ambiguity.

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 'which reference the user chose' (call this after a selection) and the 'more like this but warmer' example hints at when to attach a note. However, no alternatives are named and no explicit when-not guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer the boundary with references_add and references_shortlist.

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