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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations: complete is conditionally rejected, the summary is stored as a concept, and incomplete onboarding causes a note to appear in search_concepts and get_context results. It also explains why areaList must come from the caller because Brainz cannot read the repo.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then devotes one dense, purposeful sentence to each action. There is no filler, and the most important workflow effects are placed early.

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 stateful onboarding workflow with no output schema, it explains what each action returns or stores, the rejection condition for completion, and cross-tool side effects. An agent has enough context to choose an action and call it correctly.

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 already 100%, so this is judged on added meaning. The description reinforces conditional parameter combinations, such as areaList being supplied for status and complete and summary being required for complete, and explains the consequence of uncovered areas.

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 and resource: 'Index an existing product's codebase into this vault.' It then characterizes the three actions and how onboarding relates to upsert_concept, making the tool's scope clear without needing sibling comparison.

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 precise per-action usage: start returns the playbook, status reports coverage, and complete stores the summary and is rejected when too many areas are uncovered. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like sync or upsert_concept, but the action-level routing is very clear.

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