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

Annotations establish write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful context beyond that: workspace-scoped visibility ('nothing is visible outside that workspace') and the important caveat that memory is unreviewed context, not policy. It doesn't cover auth requirements or limits, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded and each sentence mostly earns its place, including the important 'unreviewed context' caveat. It runs five sentences and appends an API reference link, making it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

For a 9-parameter write tool with no output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description covers purpose, scoping, visibility, caveats, and alternatives. What remains missing (auth, dedupe/search behavior, whether saving is idempotent) is minor but keeps it from a 5.

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 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic intent: scoping to a client and optionally project/task, and the handoff-addressing notion behind target_harness ('addressed to... leave empty for a general memory'). This goes beyond the 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 (write) and resource (durable note to the shared Tango memory vault) with a clear outcome (next agent in any harness can pick it up). It explicitly names the sibling alternatives it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from update_client_context or log_project_decision 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use cases (handoffs between tools, cross-session context, anything a teammate would re-derive) and explicit when-not guidance ('For durable team standards use update_client_context or log_project_decision instead'). Alternatives and the selecting condition are both named.

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