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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses that recording the same insight twice replaces the earlier note, that pinned notes are left unchanged, that it requires the 'act' scope, and what the return value contains. This is thorough behavioral disclosure that complements the sparse annotations.

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 description is lengthy but well-structured with labeled sections (WHEN, Never record, WHAT COMES BACK). Each sentence adds necessary context, though it could be tightened without losing key information. The front-loading of the core action helps, and the format is scannable.

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 and only two boolean annotations, the description carries the full burden. It covers purpose, timing, examples, exclusions, side effects, return value, and authentication scope. Very complete for a write tool of this complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by requiring the insight to be 'one sentence in the founder's own terms' and reinforcing that it must be heard, not inferred. It also maps kind values to the examples, adding context beyond the schema's already detailed descriptions.

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 description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Write one durable thing you have learned about this founder or their product into AfterLaunch's Memory.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly warning not to restate get_snapshot or get_kb_page, and by framing recording as a distinct action.

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 'WHEN' section states exactly when to use it ('the moment the founder tells you something that will still be true next month') and the 'Never record' section provides explicit negative guidelines (no chatter, moods, or restatements). It also names specific sibling tools to avoid confusing with this one, giving strong when-to-use versus when-not-to guidance.

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