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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out the exact permission envelope granted: searchable/readable notes but excluding notes from imported chats, projects, context and activity, and no write access. It also discloses a critical operational trait, that the code is displayed only once and must be relayed whole, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: what it creates, the permission scope, the pre-call instruction, and the one-time display constraint all appear in order without filler. Minor ambiguity in 'díselo así en una línea', where 'así' is not fully specified, keeps it just below top marks.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the precondition, the permission scope of the resulting share, the ephemeral nature of the returned code, and the revocation tool. No meaningful gap remains.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including an example value, so the description does not need to explain it. The description adds no syntax or formatting guidance for 'label', which is acceptable at 100% schema coverage and yields the baseline score.

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 concrete verb and artifact: it creates a code that lets another person connect the user's brain. It is clearly distinguishable from connect_brain and unshare_brain, the latter named explicitly as the counterpart that revokes access.

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 precondition ('solo cuando él lo pida'), a procedural step before creation ('díselo así en una línea'), and names the alternative path for undoing it ('Se corta con unshare_brain'). The agent knows both when to call it and how the lifecycle ends.

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