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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one trait: memory is never stored automatically, only on explicit choice. However it says nothing about permissions required, persistence/retrieval behavior, mutability of a stored memory, or what the write returns.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key constraint. No filler, though the extreme brevity leaves the structured gaps unaddressed rather than being tight prose.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and one enum with unstated semantics. For a write tool that persists data, this brief description does not supply enough context for correct invocation.

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% across 5 parameters (4 required), and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The 5-value 'kind' enum, 'label', 'detail', 'session_token' and the sha256-patterned 'source_thread_id' are all left for the agent to infer from names alone.

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 ('Registra') and resource ('uma memória pública'), and the qualifier 'explicitamente escolhida pelo participante' frames it against automatic memory capture, which helps distinguish it from the broader nexo_* family. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'Nada é memorizado automaticamente' implies this is only invoked on deliberate participant intent, which is real usage context, but no alternative tool (e.g. memoria_de_meinlem) is named and no when-not guidance is given. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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