memory_sketch_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose key lifecycle traits: the object is ephemeral, auto-expires after TTL, and can be promoted to permanent actions or discarded. It omits auth/permission needs and what the created sketch returns, but the lifecycle disclosure is substantial for a create 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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the ephemeral/exploratory nature front-loaded before the lifecycle note.

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?

Covers creation semantics and the full lifecycle (expire/promote/discard) for a simple 4-param tool with no output schema. Minor gaps: no mention of permissions or what is returned on success.

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 all four parameters (title, project, description, expiresInMs) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting TTL, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create an ephemeral action graph') plus its distinguishing scope ('for exploratory work'). This separates it from the permanent memory_action_create sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'For exploratory work' implies the usage context, and 'can be promoted ... or discarded' points at the follow-on path (memory_sketch_promote). However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, leaving selection to inference.

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