brain_create_thought

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 a critical behavioral consequence: 'Always supply parentId — a thought with no links gets lost in the graph.' This warns about orphaned thoughts, which is beyond the schema's 'Without this the thought is left orphaned.' It does not mention return values or failure modes, but the core mutation behavior is clear.

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 four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when-to-use, critical warning, and pre-check advice. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant wording.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers when to use, the essential parentId caveat, and the search-first behavior. It does not explain return values, but the schema is rich enough that this is not a significant gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by elevating parentId to 'Always supply' even though schema marks it not required, and by contextualizing the search-first workflow for tagIds/typeId. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Creates a thought and sets its note, type and tags in the same call.' It distinguishes from siblings like brain_update_thought (which modifies existing thoughts) and brain_set_note (which only sets a note) by emphasizing the 'same call' combined operation.

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 guidance: 'Call it when adding something new' and 'Search first: a suitable thought may already exist, in which case extending it is the better move.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives like updating an existing thought, and implies using brain_search first.

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