memory_create_room

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) but the description adds valuable behavioral context: other people's assistants can read/write, the default scope is read_write, and the tool returns an address usable as a domain. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it omits potential errors (e.g., if the room name already 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, then usage context, return value, and next step. Each sentence adds useful information, though the phrasing is slightly dense with multiple clauses.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns and how to use it. It also covers cross-assistant sharing and the invitation workflow. It lacks discussion of failure cases or authorization requirements, but given the tool's simplicity and good annotations, it is largely complete.

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 input schema already provides full parameter descriptions with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It does not repeat or enrich the parameter meaning beyond what's already in the schema, and the only extra info (returned address) is about output rather than parameters.

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 it creates a SHARED memory room, with a specific verb 'Create' and a resource ('memory room'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_write and memory_invite_to_room by focusing on the room creation aspect.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user wants to share context or collaborate with someone else' and provides a concrete example. It also mentions the next step ('call memory_invite_to_room next') and how to use the returned address with memory_write/memory_read, offering clear context and alternatives.

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