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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful display behavior (localized welcome before login, owner's topic labels, empty-state guidance) and confirms no drafts are created, going beyond structured data.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then behavior, parameter guidance, and a negative guarantee. Every sentence contributes and there is 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?

Low-complexity tool with rich annotations and an output schema; the description covers trigger, behavior, locale, and no-drafts. Cursor remains unexplained, a minor gap given the output schema handles return values.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains locale ('Pass the conversation language as locale when known') but says nothing about cursor, leaving one of two parameters 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 'Start' and resource 'MemoStem', plus the trigger condition 'when no topic is named'. Distinguishes from draft-creation siblings with 'No drafts are created,' though it does not explicitly contrast with connect_memostem.

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 a clear when-to-use condition ('when no topic is named') and a parameter hint, but names no alternatives and provides no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The alternative connect_memostem is left to inference.

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