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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds a real behavioral trait beyond them: entries expire once fixed. It does not say whether re-adding the same gotcha duplicates or merges (relevant given idempotentHint=false), nor what is returned when the entry is created.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the scope, with zero filler. The lifecycle note at the end is the only part that goes beyond the core purpose, and it is genuinely useful.

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 7-parameter write tool whose schema is richly documented and whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is adequate but thin: it does not mention the project/source linkage to other tools, nor how a recorded gotcha is later resolved via resolve_gotcha. No output schema exists, so the missing statement about what creation returns is a small gap.

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 100%, with the enum values and the occurred_on caveat fully spelled out in the schema, so the burden is already carried. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the examples ("un bug que vuelve" loosely maps to text), which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ("Apunta una trampa de este proyecto") and grounds it with concrete examples: a recurring bug, an API limit, something not to do. That separates it from generic siblings like add_learning or add_brand_example, but it never names those siblings or resolve_gotcha to complete the picture.

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 examples imply what belongs here, and "Caduca cuando se arregla" hints at the lifecycle, but there is no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance such as adding a gotcha versus an add_learning, nor any pointer to resolve_gotcha for closing one out.

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