create_memory_profile

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 one genuinely valuable trait: the secret owner token is returned exactly once and must be kept private. However, it says nothing about whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate slugs, permissions required, or the consequences of losing the token beyond the implied warning.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the two most actionable facts (creation, one-time token) are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 five-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks any explanation of the visibility, slug, or consent_to_simulation parameters and has no sense of error or retry behavior when creation fails.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not: slug, visibility, description, and consent_to_simulation are never mentioned or explained. Worse, calling the profile 'private' while the schema exposes a visibility enum with public/unlisted options creates mild confusion about what the parameter controls.

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 and resource ('Create a new ... memory profile'), which is unambiguous on its own. It doesn't explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like set_memory_sharing or import_public_memory, but the create/own-profile scope is reasonably evident.

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 guidance on when to create a profile versus using a sibling such as import_public_memory or discover_public_memories, nor any stated prerequisites. The only conditional content is a warning about the token, not a when-to-use rule.

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