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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, and the description still adds high-value context the agent cannot infer: memory content is transmitted to a third-party model (Anthropic, United States), the feature is gated behind a user setting and a paid plan, and there is a 20/day rate limit. Data egress and quota information go well beyond what annotations convey.

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 sentences, with purpose and scope front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a dense run-on of colon-separated conditions (model, region, setting, plan, quota), which is information-rich but slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition covers purpose, alternatives, prerequisites, and limits. The one residual gap is that it never clarifies whether the summary is persisted/stored or only returned to the caller.

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 burden, and it does: 'project' selects a project while its absence (empty default) means the whole memory, and 'focus' is explicitly optional and steers the summary. It stops just short of describing format or length expectations for 'focus'.

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 ('writes a short summary of the memories saved for a project') and immediately delimits scope: a single project versus the whole memory, with an optional focus. It also names the sibling tools it is not (memory_search, memory_get_project_context), so an agent can route 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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (user must have enabled 'AI tagging and grouping' in Pryzm Settings, paid plans only), a hard quota (up to 20 summaries/day), and a named fallback ('Otherwise use memory_search or memory_get_project_context'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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