memory.procedure.create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'cria' (creates) but does not disclose idempotency, overwrite behavior, failure conditions, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidelines, third provides an example. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite clear purpose and usage guidance, the description omits explanation of optional parameters and does not address what the tool returns (no output schema) or behavioral details like duplicate handling. For a tool creating an entity, this leaves gaps in agent understanding.

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% leaving 6 parameters undocumented. The description's example explains the role of `project`, `task_type`, and `steps`, but ignores `tags`, `preconditions`, and `tools_required`. This partial compensation is insufficient for a low-coverage tool.

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 purpose: 'Cria um PROCEDIMENTO reutilizável (passo-a-passo) para um tipo de tarefa.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like memory.upsert and memory.episode.create by explicitly stating what not to use it for.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when: o conhecimento é uma sequência de passos repetível (runbook, how-to). Do NOT use for: regra/fato estático (memory.upsert); registro de um evento único (memory.episode.create).' It names alternative tools and defines clear criteria.

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