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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does valuable work by revealing that the result is a non-published draft identified by a draft_id requiring user confirmation, plus a hard language restriction and a data-integrity rule. It omits side effects an agent would want: that is_public defaults to true, whether drafts expire, idempotency behavior, and media/size limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the hard constraints and the handoff to publish_memory. No sentence is redundant and nothing important is buried.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should carry most of the load. It covers language, integrity, and the confirm-then-publish flow, but leaves most parameter meaning and all visibility/privacy consequences unexplained.

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 only 25% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at place and date ("ask the user for the real place/date"), leaving text, media, category, category_custom, is_public, is_anonymous, lat/lng, and idempotency_key undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

"Create a memory draft" gives a specific verb and resource, and the closing sentence names publish_memory as the distinct next step, so the agent can separate drafting from publishing. It does not contrast with the other creation-adjacent siblings (search_places, get_memory_categories), but the core action is unambiguous.

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 description sets explicit constraints and a precondition flow: Persian only, no English, never invent place/date, and the draft must be confirmed by the user before publish_memory. What it does not say is when to skip this tool entirely (e.g., whether a draft is mandatory before publishing, or which sibling supplies a verified location_id), which keeps it below a 5.

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