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

Annotations declare only write/non-destructive/non-open-world; the description goes further by disclosing the lifecycle state (a draft brain), the visibility rule (members see nothing until the coach publishes it in the coach console), and the auth requirement. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by the effect, follow-on action, and prerequisite. Every sentence carries information, though the account/prerequisite sentence could be tightened.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers precondition, effect, visibility, and next step, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already carry the constraints (length limits, 'never invented', confirmation must be true). The description reinforces that name and method come from the coach's own words, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (creates a draft coaching brain) and scopes it precisely to a coach/trainer turning their own method into a brain. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_coaching_brain (lookup) and save_program_to_my_coaching_brain (saving into an existing brain).

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: use it when the coach has no brain yet or asks for a new one. It also names the downstream follow-on action ('a first program can then be saved to it as a draft') and a hard prerequisite (a connected Phorme account, created by signing in with a phone number).

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