remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one meaningful behavioral fact: the entry is stored "unverified" and framed as a proposal, so the agent knows this is a tentative write rather than an authoritative one. It still omits permission requirements, whether repeated calls deduplicate, and what the stored result looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key constraint (not visible in code / unverified) arrives immediately. It is efficient, though one more clause on what belongs in title vs content would not have hurt.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does convey the essential behavioral point (unverified proposal). It falls short on parameter meaning, which matters given three required fields and near-zero schema coverage.

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 only 20% (just the project field), and the description explains none of the five parameters. Title, content, source and domain — three of which are required — have no semantics in either the description or the schema, so an agent must guess what belongs in each.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Propose") with a concrete resource ("a project lesson") and adds a scope qualifier ("not visible in the code"), so an agent can tell broadly what the tool captures. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any of the terse siblings (report, checkpoint, guard), which are plausible places to record information.

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?

"not visible in the code" implies a usage condition for what belongs here, which is a reasonable implied trigger. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like report or checkpoint, and no stated prerequisites.

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