brain_update_thought

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does add useful context by clarifying that only the thought's own properties are modified and the note is untouched. However, it does not disclose whether the update is partial (only provided fields) or full, nor any error/return behavior, which would be relevant for a mutation without annotations.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, use case, and exclusion/alternative. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to select and invoke correctly, and it even points to alternatives for note editing. It lacks explicit partial-update semantics, but the schema descriptions cover null-clearing behavior. Overall it is sufficient without over-explaining.

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?

The schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions such as 'New title' and 'Caption; null clears it.' The description's mention of 'title, caption, type, colours' is a high-level summary that doesn't map directly to the property names 'name' and 'label', but the schema already disambiguates. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Changes') and identifies the resource ('a thought's properties'), explicitly listing which properties are affected (title, caption, type, colours). It further distinguishes itself from sibling note-editing tools by clarifying it does not touch the note, which clearly separates it from brain_set_note and brain_append_note.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'Call it to rename or reclassify.' It also provides an explicit exclusion and alternative: 'It does not touch the note — use brain_set_note or brain_append_note for that.' This satisfies the when/when-not/alternatives requirement.

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