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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds the non-obvious auth requirement (memory:write scope), which is genuine value beyond the structured data. However, it does not disclose that 'replace' overwrites existing content, how version conflicts behave, or the encryption/searchability tradeoff — all material for a write tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope requirement; zero filler. Slightly under-sized for a 13-parameter write tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 13-param mutation tool with no output schema and only 62% schema coverage, the description covers the basics (upsert semantics, modes, auth) but omits overwrite consequences, version/concurrency behavior, and the encryption requirement that the schema hints at. Minimum viable rather than complete.

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 62%, and the description only echoes the key and replace/append mode, both already documented in the schema. Parameters like ttl_seconds, if_version, client_encrypted, and idempotency_key carry no additional meaning from the description.

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 pair (create or update), the resource (memory/scratchpad record), and the addressing mechanism (by key, with replace/append). This clearly separates it from retrieve_memory and search_memory, though it never names those siblings.

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?

The 'create or update' framing implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search_memory/retrieve_memory, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond the auth scope. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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