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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent write; the description adds rich context beyond that—indexing on submission, verbatim quotes of 60+ words, duplicate-skip behavior, auto-linking to existing memory, default kind, and topic fallback to 'the nearest close topic'. It even names the exact API endpoints, which the annotations do not provide.

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?

One dense paragraph, but the numbered (1)/(2) structure is front-loaded with the two-mode framing and every sentence carries information (dedup rule, char limits, default values, endpoint). Slightly heavy for a single block, but nothing is wasted.

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, no-output-schema write tool, the description covers modes, constraints, dedup, linking, and endpoint references. It says little about the response shape (beyond 'it is indexed now'), which is a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 88%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully clarifies the interplay among memory/kind/topic_id/topic_label (default kind, topic_id from get_memory, topic_label creates if new, neither = nearest close topic). It adds semantics the schema hints at but does not fully spell out.

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 (add) and resource (Voice Brain memory) and defines two distinct modes: a 'piece' via text/URL, or a single 'memory' statement. This lets an agent distinguish it immediately from siblings like get_memory, edit_memory, delete_memory, and sync_memory without opening a 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 the choice between the two modes ('one of two ways', 'instead of a piece') and routes topic resolution to the get_memory sibling and its topic_id. It does not explicitly compare against other writing siblings (edit_memory, sync_memory), so it falls short of full when-not guidance.

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