NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior ('Only non-empty fields are changed'), which is valuable. However, it omits critical details: whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid ID), or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured: a purpose statement followed by an 'Args:' section. Both sentences earn their place—the first explains the tool's behavior, the second documents parameters. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the partial update note into the first sentence.

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 a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers parameter semantics and update behavior but lacks context on permissions, error handling, or sibling differentiation. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 4 parameters: 'id' as the Learning ID number, and optional fields for title, content, and category. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., category values).

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 verb 'update' and resource 'learning entry', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nexo_learning_add' (create) and 'nexo_learning_delete' (remove), though it doesn't explicitly name them. The phrase 'Only non-empty fields are changed' adds specificity about partial updates.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nexo_learning_add' for creation or 'nexo_entity_update' for other entity types. The description implies usage for modifying existing learning entries but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing ID) or error conditions.

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