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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does this well by explicitly stating that raw prompts and full conversations are not stored, and that unknown parent IDs are rejected rather than silently adopted. It does not mention every side effect, but the disclosed behaviors are non-obvious and meaningful.

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 short sentences front-loaded with the core action, followed by a non-goal and then the chaining behavior. The § references are cryptic without a spec, but they do not bloat the text; overall efficient.

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 description covers the defining behavior and the most complex parameter interaction, but for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, it leaves required-parameter semantics and overall lifecycle behavior mostly implicit. An agent can invoke it, but may not know how to choose task_structure_id or environment_id confidently.

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 description adds real semantic value for parent_experience_id and subgoal by explaining the chaining mechanism and inherited goal stack. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the other six parameters, including the three required identifiers, get no explanation beyond their bare names.

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 operation ('Start an experience episode') on a clear resource, and the verb/noun combination is distinguishable from sibling tools like execute_task or record_experience. However, it relies on the reader already knowing what an 'experience episode' is and provides no one-line expansion, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 concrete guidance for the long-horizon case: pass parent_experience_id and subgoal to chain episodes with an inherited goal stack, and warns that unknown parents are rejected. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the intended scenario is clear enough.

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