context_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important non-obvious behavior: 'The entry will be automatically categorized and compressed for efficient retrieval.' This alerts the agent that content is not stored verbatim. However, it omits other behavioral details like permissions, idempotency, or return behavior, leaving moderate gaps.

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 three sentences: first states the action, second gives usage guidance, third discloses automatic behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatements of the tool 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, 3 required, enums) and the rich schema, the description adds necessary behavioral context (automatic categorization/compression) and usage context. It does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., how to find the entry, whether an ID is returned), but given no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, adequately complete for an add operation.

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 the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema—only the general hint that entries relate to 'decisions, patterns, or information.' It does not explain how parameters like category, level, or priority interact with the automatic categorization/compression behavior, so it stays at the baseline.

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 action ('Add new context entry to the knowledge base') and specifies the resource (knowledge base). It also gives examples of what to use it for ('important decisions, patterns, or information'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like context_get or context_update, but 'add new entry' inherently distinguishes it from non-add operations.

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 provides explicit usage direction: 'Use this to remember important decisions, patterns, or information about the project.' This gives clear context for when to call the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as context_search for retrieval or context_update for modifications, so it lacks exclusions.

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