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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a similarity search runs before INSERT, that duplicates are flagged via a `warning` but still inserted, and that global memory requires Pro. It does not state authentication requirements beyond the Pro note, but the behavioral context is notably rich.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, but the body is dense with parentheticals and mixes French and English, which slightly impedes scanning. Every sentence is meaningful, yet the presentation could be tighter.

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 (including the referenced `warning`) needn't be re-explained, and scope behavior is well covered. The gap is the three undocumented parameters (entities, participants, persona_slug), which leaves the definition incomplete for an agent filling the call.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains project_scope thoroughly and implies content_md ('at most 3000 characters') and title ('at most 120') limits, but entities, participants, and persona_slug are completely undocumented.

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 ('Écrit un event épisodique' / writes an episodic event), which is distinguishable from siblings like update_semantic or search_memory. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it stays at 4 rather than 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: omitting project_scope uses session scope, passing 'global' forces global memory only for cross-project content, and notes global memory is only read with Pro. It covers scope selection well but offers no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing.

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