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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Idempotent; audited' discloses two meaningful traits, but critical details like required permissions, side effects on related objectives/key results, and whether closure is reversible are omitted.

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?

Two very short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by key behavioral qualifiers. Every word earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists and all parameters are described, so return values and parameter meanings need not be repeated. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations also missing usage context, the description is minimally adequate but leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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%, and both parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage or format, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Close an OKR cycle.' The action is clear and distinct from sibling tools like memory_strategic_plan_get or memory_strategic_plan_set, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is not a tautology and an agent can identify the core operation.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The implied context is that this is used when an OKR cycle ends, but the description gives no explicit guidance. This matches the 'no guidance' level.

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