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

Annotations already declare the write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world profile, and the description adds material context beyond them: secrets are actively refused, the note becomes readable by every connected assistant, an account connection is a prerequisite, and the user retains full visibility and control. It does not say what a successful call returns (id, confirmation) or what a refusal looks like, which keeps it short of 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then exclusions, then the sharing/auth model, so the most important sentence comes first. It is dense and mostly earns its length, though the parenthetical example set is slightly long and the same facts are partly restated in the closing sentences.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, consent rules, prohibited content, persistence semantics, and the auth prerequisite. The only real gap is the outcome of a call — whether it returns an identifier or a confirmation — which the absence of an output schema leaves entirely to inference.

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 schema already documents both fields; the baseline would be 3. The description still adds real constraint beyond it: notes should be one idea, phrased in the user's own words, and drawn from something the user actually said — guidance that changes what an agent writes into `note`.

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 ("Save ... in their Foundaree Memory") and immediately scopes what belongs there with three concrete example categories. It also names the counterpart read tool ("recall"), so an agent can place this on the write side of a save/read pair without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-save rule ("only what the user asked to remember or clearly agreed to"), a when-not rule (passwords, PINs, one-time codes, keys, card numbers), a granularity rule ("one idea per note"), and routes correction/deletion to the web UI. Alternatives for reading (recall) and for maintenance (the memory page) are named.

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