projectbrain_review_experience_claim

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states 'Update' but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, idempotency, or error states. A mutation tool with 9 parameters requires more transparency about what 'local review metadata' entails and whether other data is affected.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but vastly underspecified given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema). It does not earn its brevity; it sacrifices necessary detail. A minimal viable description for this tool would require multiple sentences.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose in the context of the sibling tools, the role of each parameter, or the expected outcome of the update. This leaves the AI agent with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.

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%. The description adds no meaning to the 9 parameters beyond their names and types in the schema. For example, it doesn't explain what 'applies_to', 'confidence', or 'source' mean in context. Parameter semantics are entirely undocumented in the description.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'update' and resource 'local review metadata for an experience claim'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add' and 'archive' by implying modification of existing data. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, and the term 'review metadata' could be more precise.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. Given the sibling tools (add, archive, list), the description should provide context for selection.

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