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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds the non-obvious 45-minute dedup window and the duplicate:true signal. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it omits cost/duration or side effects of actually launching a run.

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?

Front-loads the verb and outcome in the first clause, then enumerates the returned plan contents. The enumeration is dense but informative; only the long list of plan components pushes slightly past what is needed to select and call the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so thoroughly (id, start time, per-brain state, sources, memories, topics, questions, commitments, steps, plus the duplicate case). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed 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% with a single well-documented boolean, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior that force overrides (the 45-minute window and the duplicate return), giving the parameter meaning in context rather than restating it.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Starts a daily update run') and immediately specifies what is returned (id, start time, plan). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_status, run_checkpoint and run_recap, which are about inspecting or recording an existing run.

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?

Explains the key invocation condition: if a run started or finished in the last 45 minutes, that run is returned instead with duplicate: true, and the force parameter overrides this. However, it never names an alternative sibling (e.g. run_status) or states when a caller should prefer inspecting an existing run over starting a new one.

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