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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds the deprecation status and the auto-capture default, but omits what happens to an existing record on refine, and whether repeated calls duplicate or overwrite.

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, front-loaded with the deprecation warning so the agent sees the most decision-relevant fact first. Efficient, though the second sentence's 'automatic capture' reference is slightly ambiguous without a referent.

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?

The tool has ten parameters with only middling schema coverage and is a mutation, yet the description is two lines and never names a successor tool or the record lifecycle implications. The existence of an output schema removes the need to describe returns, but the deprecation guidance is incomplete without a replacement path.

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 70%, so most parameters are already documented, including title, domain, featureId, and supersedesFeatureId. The description contributes only the loose notion of 'existing record' that hints at featureId, and adds no syntax or behavioral detail for the ten fields.

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: manually create or refine a Feature Memory record, and flags it as a deprecated compatibility tool. An agent can separate it from list_feature_memory, compare_feature_memory, and delete_feature, though it never names the replacement tool.

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?

Communicates that automatic capture is disabled by default, which implies manual invocation, and the 'deprecated' label hints at avoidance. But it gives no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative for agents that should not call it.

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