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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds important context by clarifying that Engram does not connect to or read the source, and that it tracks when it was last read. However, it does not explicitly mention that this is a destructive or idempotent operation, which could be useful given the annotations. The added nuance is valuable but not fully comprehensive.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the core action and immediately clarifying the scope (does not connect/read) and tracking aspect. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity, annotations, and full schema coverage but no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the key behavioral nuance (no actual connection), but could mention idempotency or destructive nature, though annotations already handle that. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description provides examples like 'chat workspace, mailbox, drive or meeting recorder,' which aligns with the 'kind' parameter, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Records a source the brain is built from'), enumerates examples of source kinds, and distinguishes the tool from a data-ingestion tool by clarifying Engram does not connect to or read the source. This is clear enough to separate it from siblings like source_watermark on its own.

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 description indicates this tool is for registering a source, implying when to use it, but it does not compare with alternatives like source_watermark or explain prerequisites. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, so the usage is only inferred.

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