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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful context that the value surfaces on the Engram console during the build, but it never explains the destructive/idempotent consequence — i.e. that recording a stage overwrites the previously recorded status and counts for that stage.

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 compact sentences with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical enumerations of stage and status values slightly duplicate the schema enums, which is the only redundancy.

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 five-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what the tool records and where it is displayed. The only real gap is the overwrite semantics implied by destructiveHint=true and the role of the brain parameter, both of which are left to structured fields.

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 100%, so every parameter including brain, done and total is already documented in the schema. The description restates the stage and status enumerations and mentions the optional done/total counts, adding no format or default semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3.

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 (Records) and resource (progress on one stage of the build) and enumerates the allowed stage and status values, so the agent knows exactly what it writes. It never distinguishes itself from near-name siblings such as activation_report, activation_status, stage_commit or stage_propose, so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.

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?

"Shown on the Engram console while the brain is being built" implies the usage context (during an active build) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. With activation_report, activation_status, stage_commit and stage_propose in the sibling set, the absence of any routing rule leaves the choice to inference.

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