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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns an id, a line to say back to the person, and empty sections, and it explains that amends creates a new linked version from a frozen brief rather than modifying it in place.

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 purpose and return values are front-loaded, followed by tightly scoped guidance for profile and amends. The formatting is slightly awkward with line breaks inside the description, but there is little wasted text.

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?

The tool has five parameters, one required, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, for a creation tool it leaves the required `idea` parameter completely undefined and does not explain what the empty sections represent or how they will be filled in later.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It does well for profile (explains each enum choice and fallback behavior) and amends (explains the linked-version semantics), but the required `idea` parameter is not described anywhere, leaving the most important input undefined.

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: 'Start a new brief'. It also says what it returns, which is useful. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like grill_brief or grill_get, though 'new' distinguishes it from amendment via the amends parameter.

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 conditional guidance for profile values: 'client-job' when work is for a client, 'general' for own work, 'operating-profile' only when stempa_whoami offers it. It also explains when to use amends instead of a fresh brief. It does not mention alternatives among sibling tools, but the when-to-use conditions for the optional parameters are explicit.

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