memory_sentinel_create

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it explains that timers schedule a local callback while other types rely on checks or external triggering, states the return shape {success,sentinel}, and notes audit state is recorded. It omits permissions, idempotency, and persistence lifetime beyond the expiresInMs param.

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 purpose, then packs config rules and behavioral notes densely with little waste. The config-per-type enumeration is efficient, though the sentence stacking makes it slightly dense to parse.

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 5-param create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, config semantics per type, runtime behavior of each type, return shape, and one alternative. Only auth/prerequisite context and the trigger/create relationship are left uncovered.

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% so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: per-type config contents, the operator enum values (gt/lt/eq) not present in the schema, and the constraint that durationMs must be positive. This is real value beyond the structured fields.

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+resource ("Persist a watching sentinel") and clarifies scope ("optional gates on existing linkedActionIds"). It reads as a create/registration operation distinct from memory_sentinel_trigger, though it never explicitly contrasts the two, and "sentinel" remains jargon that isn't defined.

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?

Names one alternative ("Use memory_checkpoint for a manually resolved external gate") with the condition that selects it, which is useful routing. However it gives no guidance on when to create a sentinel at all versus other mechanisms, and never addresses the obvious sibling memory_sentinel_trigger.

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