brain_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'lens' model and cross-brain context, which is useful conceptual context, but it doesn't mention operational behaviors such as return values, potential conflicts, or permissions. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 documented parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and conceptual model. It lacks explicit return-value information, but the create operation is straightforward. The second sentence provides useful context about cross-brain behavior, making it reasonably complete.

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%, with well-described parameters (name, description, initial_context). The description doesn't add much detail beyond the schema, but the 'lens' metaphor indirectly helps interpret the purpose of the parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new brain for a new project, client, or domain.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('brain'), and the second sentence explains the conceptual model, distinguishing it from sibling tools like brain_absorb or brain_remember.

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 phrase 'for a new project, client, or domain' gives clear context on when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the distinction between creating a new brain versus interacting with existing ones (e.g., brain_query, brain_absorb) is implied by the wording.

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