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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that records are published on creation unless draft:true is passed, that duplicates fragment the graph, and what the response contains (the created gap, its assigned ID, and the caller's permissions). It leaves one annotation-relevant behavior implicit — idempotentHint is false, so repeat calls create duplicates, which is warned about only as a graph-fragmentation risk rather than as a non-idempotency caveat.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and trigger, then operational notes, then return value — a sensible ordering. The draft paragraph and the published-by-default statement partially overlap, but every line carries information and nothing is padding.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with 11% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core path (label/detail/status/draft/parent) and the return value, which is the most important gap filled. It is nonetheless incomplete on the remaining six parameters — classification, validity windows, and references — that an agent may be asked to populate.

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 only 11%, so the description carries a heavy burden and only partly meets it: it explains detail's meaning, detail's requiredness, status's default of "open", and draft's semantics. Label, parentId, validFrom, validUntil, classification, and references receive no explanation in the description and almost none in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new gap in the workspace") and then defines what a gap is conceptually — "a known absence — something the organisation needs to know, decide, or verify but hasn't yet." That conceptual definition is what lets an agent separate this from create_concept, create_goal, or create_constraint without reading their schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger — "Use when you identify missing knowledge, an unanswered question, or an unverified claim" — and adds a procedural guideline to browse with engramic_topic before attaching to a parent. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over engramic_create_concept or engramic_create_constraint, which would be the last step to a 5.

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