create_memo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and omits any side effects, persistence semantics, prerequisites, visibility behavior, or return value. An agent cannot tell from the description what happens after the call succeeds or what constraints apply.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It could usefully add more context, but as measured purely by conciseness and structure, it is compact and immediately understandable.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, this minimal description is insufficient. It does not mention that an instance is required, what the created memo looks like in response, whether visibility or pinning are optional, or any operational context such as needing a connected instance. The schema covers parameter names but not the tool's broader invocation context.

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 the input schema already documents all four parameters, including defaults for pinned and visibility. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond reinforcing that content is provided, but the schema carries the weight adequately.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new memo.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling mutations like update_memo and delete_memo. However, it restates the tool name almost verbatim and adds no detail about what a memo is or what creating one entails.

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 implies this is the tool to use when the agent needs to create a memo, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, what preconditions exist (such as a connected instance), or when not to use it. The context is inferable from the name and siblings but not stated.

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