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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it adds meaningful context: it states that raw prompts and full conversations are not stored, and that unknown parent experiences are rejected rather than silently adopted. It does not mention side effects or persistence beyond 'start,' but the output schema can cover return shape.

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 description is three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by non-storage behavior and chaining guidance, so every sentence earns its place.

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 most important behavioral and chaining context, and the output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the meaning of several parameters, especially the required ones, is left to inference. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain parameters, but it only adds real meaning for parent_experience_id and subgoal. The required fields task_structure_id, environment_id, and agent_id, as well as model_family, model_version, and task_instance_hash, remain unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start an experience episode,' so the core action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the privacy note ('Does not store raw prompts or full conversations') narrows the tool's role and helps distinguish it from recording or reporting tools.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: for long-horizon work, pass parent_experience_id with a subgoal to chain episodes via an inherited goal stack. It also warns that unknown parents are rejected, which helps the agent avoid invalid calls. It does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as cognitive.record_experience, so full alternative routing is missing.

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