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

Annotations only declare write/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'Async by default' and 'Owner-gated: your handle+secret' disclose processing mode and auth requirements, plus the return shape. It does not say what happens to existing bank content or rate limits.

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-loaded with the verb and destination, then the differentiator, then inputs, then execution/auth/return in four tight clauses. No 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ok, bank, retained}), the auth model, the async behavior, and the two input forms — enough for an agent to invoke it correctly given a 100%-covered 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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the mutually-exclusive input choice ('Pass content OR items') and reiterates the batch item shape, giving meaning beyond the per-param schema text.

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 (retain) and resource (experience into your LEARNING memory bank) and explicitly contrasts against the '/remember' sticky-note alternative, so an agent can distinguish it from the memory-recall/store siblings without opening schemas.

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 'Unlike /remember sticky notes' clause and 'reasoned over later' give clear context for when this durable, indexed bank is the right target versus ephemeral notes, but it does not explicitly route to a retrieval sibling (e.g. memory_recall) or state exclusions.

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