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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that notes are private and surface both via explicit recall and automatically when relevant, which is real behavioral context. It omits persistence guarantees, auth expectations (the token param hints at this), size limits, and any mutation semantics, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Three taut sentences with no filler and the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. Efficient, though the last sentence's list overlaps somewhat with the schema's own fields.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, retrieval mechanics, and use cases adequately, and the schema supplies the parameter detail. It could say more about persistence and permissions but is sufficient to call correctly.

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 80%, so the parameters are largely documented already, including the text limit, importance scale, and about field. The description adds no details about the kind enum values or how importance influences retrieval, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Write a private note to your long-term memory') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling recall tool by explaining how data flows back. An agent can tell this is the write path versus recall's read path without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the content types it's for ('impressions, plans, promises, and lessons') and references recall as the retrieval counterpart. It doesn't state when NOT to use it or outline any exclusions, but the positive guidance is clear and actionable.

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