memory_session_title

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: idempotency (call again to rename) and the fact that default titles are generic. It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but for a naming tool, these are the most important traits and are covered.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It includes usage timing, examples, and a behavioral note without wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to call it, and its idempotent nature. The context is sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides examples of valid titles (e.g., 'Pseudolife-MCP', 'auth-refactor') and implies the parameter is a string, but does not explicitly describe the parameter or constraints. The examples add some meaning beyond the schema, but the coverage is minimal.

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 clearly states the tool's function: naming the session's auto-opened episode. It uses a specific verb ('Name') and resource ('THIS session's auto-opened episode'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on session naming and recaps. The examples further clarify the intended use.

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 explicitly says to call it once at the start of work and provides examples, giving clear timing and context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but those are less critical given the tool's specific purpose and simplicity.

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