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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that Haven persists the text as memory and that current_context is only consulted when agent_summary is empty, but it omits mutation-relevant behavior: whether repeated reflections overwrite or accumulate, permission/auth needs, and failure modes for an invalid stay_id.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the payload-writing instruction. Each sentence adds something, though the second sentence is the only slightly discursive one.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the gaps; it handles the agent_summary vs current_context ambiguity well but says nothing about post-call state, whether the reflection is retrievable or when, or the role of stay_id and goals. Adequate but with clear holes for a memory-writing tool.

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, but the description genuinely adds meaning by instructing the agent to author agent_summary itself in first person and specifying the content (who you are, what you learned and decided) — guidance the schema's terse 'Your own summary' does not supply. The max-1000-char constraint still lives only in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Record a reflection during your stay') and clarifies that the reflection is stored as persistent memory, which plausibly separates it from the retrieval-oriented sibling haven_recall. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the check_in/check_out/recall boundaries itself.

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?

'During your stay' implies the temporal context for use, and the description hints that agent_summary is the preferred payload. But it never states when to call this versus haven_recall or haven_check_out, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid stay from haven_check_in (that only appears in the schema).

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