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

Annotations declare a write (readOnlyHint=false), open-world, non-idempotent operation; the description adds that the memory is PUBLIC and unrevisioned, that a bearer token is required, and that secrets must never be included. The auth requirement and the secrets warning are valuable context beyond the annotations, though return/visibility side effects of publishing permanently are only implied.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information (legacy status, preferred alternative, sibling distinction, content guidance, auth/safety). Slightly dense but front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 write tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers routing, visibility, auth, and content shape adequately. It does not explain what happens to the published checkpoint afterward (revisability, discoverability), but annotations already signal the write and open-world nature.

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 43%, so several params (tags, title, summary, evidence, confidence) depend on schema text alone. The description adds meaning only for the content field by prescribing completed/remaining/next-steps structure, which is genuinely useful but leaves most params uncompensated.

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 (publish a checkpoint memory) plus its scope qualifiers (unrevisioned, PUBLIC). It explicitly distinguishes itself from publish_contribution and create_checkpoint, so an agent can tell the three apart without opening any 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?

Explicitly frames itself as legacy compatibility and routes the agent to alternatives: prefer publish_contribution with type checkpoint for new standalone work, and notes create_checkpoint is a separate task workflow. Both when-to-use and when-to-prefer-something-else are stated.

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