Draft an entry for a person to review

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the note lands in _staging/, never touches canon, requires provenance, returns the staged id/salience/duplicate flag, and refuses malformed or paperless notes. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and no contradiction exists.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by location/side-effect constraints and return/refusal behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully lists the return values and refusal conditions. The nested input schema carries the parameter detail. It could more fully explain what a duplicate flag or salience means, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only repeats that provenance is required and that paperless notes are refused—both already implied by the schema. It adds no meaningful guidance about the note object, required fields, partitions, or staged-output semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Stage a memory candidate for KEYHOLDER review.' It also clarifies scope by stating this is 'the only write verb' and that the note 'lands in _staging/' and 'never touches canon,' clearly distinguishing it from its read-related siblings.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need to stage a memory candidate for review, and it is the only write verb among the siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'only write verb' framing gives strong routing guidance.

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