update_brief

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses upsert semantics ('The first update creates the Brief'), the optimistic-concurrency guarantee ('conflicts are reported, never silently overwritten'), and an environment constraint ('Local stdio only'). The annotations already cover safety/idempotency, but this clarifies the version-guard failure mode that annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, the required read-before-write discipline, then the create-on-first-use and stdio constraints. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

Covers purpose, ordering, concurrency behavior, and environment restrictions for a mutation tool with no output schema. Minor gaps remain — e.g. partial-failure behavior when a batch of mutations only partly succeeds — but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description explains the *purpose* of expected_version (reuse versions from the last read) and frames mutations as an ordered list of tagged kinds, which is more than the schema's structural enumeration alone.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource pair ('Hand off to the next session by updating the Space Brief') and then enumerates the exact operations (replace summary, add/edit/move/gate/complete items). This clearly separates it from the read-only sibling 'brief' and from unrelated siblings like write_page or capture.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Read brief first and reuse its brief_version and item versions', which tells the agent the ordering relative to the sibling 'brief' tool. It doesn't spell out when *not* to use it or what to do on conflict beyond 'conflicts are reported', so it falls just short of a 5.

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