nexo_drive_reinforce

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 'increases tension' and 'may promote signal status', which are behavioral effects. However, it lacks details on what 'tension' means, potential side effects, or what happens on failure. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first provides the core action and resource, while the second explains the effect. No redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has two simple parameters and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and effect but does not mention what the tool returns or how success/failure is indicated. For a mutation tool, return info is useful for agents. This gap lowers completeness from ideal.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already explain the fields. The description's mention of 'New observation that supports this signal' and 'Signal ID to reinforce' adds no new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reinforces a drive signal with a new observation and explains the effect on signal status (latent → rising → ready). It distinguishes itself from sibling drive tools like 'nexo_drive_act' and 'nexo_drive_dismiss' by specifying the reinforcement action.

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 implies when to use (when you have a new observation to strengthen a signal) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or contrasts with alternatives. No sibling differentiation is present, leaving the agent to infer context.

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