teach_lookup

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and 'Install' is consistent with a write, but the description adds no behavioral context: it doesn't say whether existing rows are overwritten, whether confirmation is required (the 'yes' param hints at prompts), or how this interacts with the teach/recall learning loop (the 'no-learn' param).

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero padding — the core action and its key inputs come first. It is arguably over-terse for a 25-parameter mutation tool, but that is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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 non-idempotent write tool with 25 parameters, no output schema, and a rich surrounding teach/recall ecosystem, one parenthetical is not enough. The agent is left guessing about confirmation, overwrite semantics, and return values.

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 100%, so the 25 parameters are fully documented in structured data and the baseline is 3. The description does usefully highlight kind/canonical/value as the meaningful inputs (the schema's required list is empty even though those descriptions say 'required'), but it adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Install') and resource ('manual entity-lookup row') plus the three key fields (kind, canonical, value), so an agent can tell it writes a manual lookup alias rather than a pattern or playbook. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings teach, teach_pattern, and teach_playbook, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus teach, teach_pattern, teach_playbook, or recall — the closest siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of what happens when a kind already exists.

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