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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive write; the description goes further by disclosing that the result is a draft, that members see nothing until the coach adds it in the coach console, and that a connected Phorme account owning the brain is required. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences: the trigger condition comes first, then the write semantics, then the account prerequisite. No filler and nothing 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the trigger, the resulting state, visibility, and the auth prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 80%, so most parameters (weeks, brain_id, sessions, reps, rest, seconds, confirmation) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the kind of content saved and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 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 ('saves the program as a draft on that brain') plus the content captured (session names, exercises, sets and reps). It is clearly separable from the adjacent save_program_to_phorme sibling by targeting the coach's coaching brain rather than Phorme directly.

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 trigger condition: the coach wrote a program in this conversation and clearly asked to save it to a coaching brain. It does not name save_program_to_phorme as the alternative or state when not to use this tool, so the routing between the two save tools is only implied.

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