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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (mutation, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context: it replaces an existing show-written reflection, joins future dates only after air_date, and 'shapes how it talks, never how a date ends.' That is meaningful beyond the structured fields, though permissions and failure modes are unstated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the remaining sentences carry distinct behavioral facts. It is a dense run-on paragraph where a break would help, but no sentence is pure 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the write accomplishes and when it takes effect, which is the key missing piece. For a 4-param mutation covered by annotations, that is nearly sufficient; only auth/permission behavior is absent.

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 75% and the description does not explain episode_id or character_id beyond the schema's own hint. It reinforces the reflection's expected form (own voice, what it wants), matching the schema's 'first person, two or three sentences' note rather than adding new constraint detail.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Write one of YOUR characters' private reflection on a date') and conveys the in-voice, first-person framing. It is clearly distinct from siblings like go_on_date or rate_character, though the wording is slightly florid and buries the action behind narrative color.

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?

It states the effect ('replaces the show-written one for that side') and routes the agent to get_own_date_step for self-performed dates, plus the air_date timing condition. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming the tool it supersedes, but the context is clear.

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