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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: vouch and recommend show the user's name unless they ask otherwise, avoid is never public, optional usage details may be asked once, and re-calling vouch for the same product adds details without changing anything else. These details clarify visibility, follow-up behavior, and idempotent-style saving in a way the annotations do not.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then layers in usage conditions, visibility rules, optional-field handling, and repeat behavior. Despite its length, each sentence carries operational guidance that is not redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 seven-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation: it covers when to use it, what is saved, privacy implications, optional details, follow-up prompting, and repeat-call behavior. The mention that the result lists missing details compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 all seven parameters, including enums and length limits. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by explaining visibility defaults for `show_name`, privacy for `avoid`, and that `role`, `how_long`, and `still_using` are optional details the agent may ask about once.

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: save the user's own vouch, recommend, or avoid for a software product, with their why in a sentence. It is clear about what is being saved, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling tool `recommend`, even though the same word appears in the enum and description.

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 gives a clear usage condition: only use it when the user asks to vouch, recommend, or avoid something in their own words. It also explains follow-up behavior when optional details are missing and when the user calls it again, but it does not name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use this one.

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