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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses upsert (create-or-overwrite) semantics, the scope resolution order, the fact that global memory is only readable with Pro, and hard limits (4000 chars content, 120 chars title, 200 chars summary). It omits what happens on update to unspecified fields and any auth requirements beyond the Pro note.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with purpose first, then scope rules, then content constraints, so an agent gets the essentials immediately. It is somewhat long and mixes languages, but nearly every clause carries operational information rather than 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description supplies the scope model, size limits and summary semantics an agent needs to call this mutation correctly. The remaining gap is the undocumented entities and persona_slug parameters.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents project_scope (scope resolution), summary (length, when served, when to rewrite) and the title/content_md limits, but never explains entities or persona_slug, leaving two parameters completely undefined.

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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Upsert d'une règle procédurale nommée') plus the identity key ('clef = title'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling update_semantic. It does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description gives concrete selection guidance for project_scope: omission yields session scope (header X-Project-Scope, then SCOPE_DEFAULT), while passing "global" is reserved for content valid across all projects, with a warning that scoped content belongs in the project. That is real when/when-not guidance for a key parameter, though no guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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