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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by enumerating the concrete side effects per answer (memory facts, calendar events plus a 7-day reminder, workspace timezone overwrite, Goal records) and by disclosing the propose→confirm gate with status='confirmation_required', action_id, and plan_token. The only shortfall is that it does not flag the timezone overwrite or goal creation as irreversible/overwriting in a cautionary way, which matters for a destructiveHint=true tool.

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 is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the single dense paragraph with heavy ALL-CAPS emphasis and arrow notation is harder to scan than a short bulleted field map would be. Efficient in content, slightly overloaded in presentation.

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 an 8-parameter nested mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, per-field effects, skip behavior, and the confirmation handshake. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly — or to know it must follow with confirm_action — 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%, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it spells out the nested answer shape, formats (birthday YYYY-MM-DD, timezone IANA), enum values for style.language and style.tone, and maps each answer group to its downstream effect. This meaningfully exceeds what the bare JSON schema conveys.

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 — 'Submit the caller's warm-start onboarding questionnaire' — and immediately scopes it as an optional-fields survey submission that becomes persistent data. It is clearly distinct from the read side (get_onboarding) and from the write-execution sibling (confirm_action), which it names explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('provide only what the user shared; omitted answers write nothing'), an explicit opposite path ('Pass skip_all: true (or an empty payload) to record a deliberate skip'), and names the required follow-up tool confirm_action. An agent knows both when to call it and what to do next without inference.

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