projectbrain_add_experience_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: write-only and no reading of source bodies. But it does not mention what happens on conflict (e.g., overwrite vs. fail), required permissions, or side effects like triggering any downstream processes. This 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 is two sentences long, containing only essential information without any fluff. It is efficient and front-loaded, immediately stating the core action.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It lacks details on parameter meanings, return values, error conditions, and usage examples. For a tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent with many unknowns.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for any of the 9 parameters. The description offers no additional explanation of parameters like applies_to, risk_level, review_state, claim_type, confidence, source, or claim_id. The agent is left to infer from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action (add), resource (experience claim), and scope (local human, imported project). It differentiates from siblings like archive and review by implying creation. However, the term 'human experience claim' may be domain-specific and not fully self-explanatory.

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 context that it writes only to local storage and does not read source bodies, which helps in deciding when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like projectbrain_review_experience_claim or projectbrain_archive_experience_claim, leaving some ambiguity.

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