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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding non-obvious behavior: the document is NOT sent to the server, no object list is embedded in the prompts, and resolve_names is the mechanism for discovering existing entities. It stops short of permissions/error behavior, but meaningfully exceeds annotation coverage.

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?

Purpose and step marker are front-loaded, and the numbered flow is efficient for a multi-tool workflow. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; the mixed use of prose and STEP parens is slightly repetitive but not wasteful.

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 workflow-initiating tool with a rich output schema (so returns needn't be re-explained), the description still sketches the return ('a passes list' with classes/objects passes) and lays out all four steps and the handoff to sibling tools. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema only labels the field 'Memory', so the description must compensate. It does: '`memory` is the slug from list_my_memories' tells the agent both the format and where to obtain the value, which is the key unknown for this single parameter.

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 ('Add a document to the knowledge graph by extracting it YOURSELF') and explicitly frames itself as STEP 1 of 4, which distinguishes it from the sibling submit_extraction_from_llm that performs the later step. An agent can tell what it produces (prompts) and what it does not do (send the document).

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?

'Use whenever the user shares a document/notes/transcript and wants it captured in the graph, and you (this assistant) should do the extraction' gives a clear trigger condition. The full 4-step flow names the alternatives (resolve_names, submit_extraction_from_llm) and their ordering, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternate path is given.

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