memory_candidate_create

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 disclose two genuinely useful behaviors: the operation is idempotent (retry-safe) and it does not mutate canonical Markdown. However, it omits what happens on validation failure, how sensitivity='prohibited' is handled, permission requirements, and whether duplicates are deduplicated or merely tolerated.

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 zero filler, which is efficient. Given the 16-parameter surface, however, the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 16-parameter (10 required) creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, one sentence is not enough. The agent lacks guidance on field semantics, idempotency key behavior, and error conditions, all of which matter before invoking a write operation.

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 16 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Required fields like source_kind, memory_type, proposed_target_note, and the sensitivity/scope enums are entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess at accepted formats and semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('review candidate'), and the clause 'without changing canonical Markdown' separates it from mutating siblings like memory_update. The term 'review candidate' is domain jargon left unexplained, but the sibling set (memory_candidate_approve/reject/expire) makes the intent inferable.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'without changing canonical Markdown' implicitly contrasts with memory_update, but the agent must infer that this is the staging step preceding memory_candidate_approve. No prerequisites, sequencing, or alternatives are named.

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