learn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals staging-area semantics, the single-item limit, and the reversible replace behavior of `supersedes` (old note kept, marked as replaced, stops being returned). It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or failure modes, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 dense but efficient: the main action is front-loaded, the scope rule is one sentence, and the `supersedes` paragraph earns its length by explaining reversible behavior. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in prose. The description covers purpose, exclusions, `kind` routing, and `supersedes` semantics. The only noticeable omission is the `project` parameter, which is not explained despite being part of the tool's inputs.

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 prose is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds strong semantics for `kind` (module prefix examples like 'rag:gotcha') and `supersedes` (how to address an existing note and what replacement does). `text` is implied, but the `project` parameter is never explicitly mapped or explained, leaving a small but real 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deposit ONE learning into the project's episodic memory (staging area).' It also sets a clear scope with 'Learnings only,' which separates it from routine logging. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like recall or ingest_code, so it stops just short of a full 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?

The description gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule: routine actions are logging, not learning, and belong in session transcripts. It also advises using `supersedes` instead of rewriting history. However, it does not name alternatives among the sibling tools, so the guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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