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

Annotations already flag a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: no approval is required and why ('noting your own uncertainty isn't acting on the user's behalf'). It doesn't describe the returned record or any limits, but the auth/approval disclosure is genuinely additive.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences that move from what to record, to why no gating is needed, to when to attach a subject. Dense but each sentence carries guidance; no filler or repetition of the schema.

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-record write with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing 'why' and 'approval' context plus subject-attachment guidance. It leaves workspace selection entirely to the schema but otherwise covers what an agent needs to invoke 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 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns an increment by tying the fields to intent — the question, the WHY (rationale), and the resolution path (suggestedResolution) — plus the conditional semantics of subjectType/subjectId ('when it's ABOUT a specific page or person').

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 — recording an open question into the gap registry — and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the registry's role as working memory. An agent can separate it from compass_gaps_list/resolve/update without opening a schema.

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 clear context for when to use it ('while mapping or interviewing', 'use it liberally') and specifies the condition for attaching a subject ('when it's ABOUT a specific page or person'). It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it supersedes (gaps_update/resolve), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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