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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only reveals that login is required and that a new memo is added; it does not mention persistence, return values, side effects, duplication behavior, or errors. This is thin for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that conveys both the purpose and the authentication prerequisite. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool with fully documented schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the auth requirement. The lack of output schema and response details is not critical here, though mentioning the result of the operation would make it fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description's mention of 'text' adds little beyond the string type, and 'login required' is already implied by the token parameter. It meets the baseline but adds no real parameter-level insight.

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 the action 'add' and the target resource 'new memo', plus the format 'as text'. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_memos, delete_memo, register, and login.

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 explicitly notes that login is required, giving a clear prerequisite for use. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the add-vs-list/delete distinction is obvious enough from the sibling names.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important traits: login necessity and that only 'own' memos can be deleted. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if the memo ID does not exist or belongs to another user) or whether deletion is irreversible, which would be valuable for a destructive action.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence provides essential information (action and scope, then prerequisite) without wasted words.

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 simple delete operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: action, target, scope, and prerequisite. It lacks explicit mention of success/failure responses or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and absence of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the ID refers to 'your own' memo, which is not explicitly stated in the schema (schema only says '削除するメモのID'). It also reiterates the login requirement, tying the token parameter to a prerequisite. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 '指定したIDの自分のメモを削除します' (deletes your own memo with the specified ID), using a specific verb (削除) and resource (メモ), and explicitly scopes to '自分の' (own). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_memo (create) and list_memos (read), offering no ambiguity.

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 indicates this is for deleting a memo and notes that login is required, which is a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it, but since no other delete tool exists among siblings, the context is sufficient for selection.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the login prerequisite, which is useful context, but does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid token, or any error behavior. Minimal for a simple tool; adds some value beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and prerequisite. No fluff or redundancy; every word 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?

Tool is simple (one param, no output schema, no annotations) and the description covers the essential purpose and login requirement. However, it does not mention the return format, potential errors (e.g., invalid token), or explicitly label the operation as non-mutating, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent.

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 documents the token parameter with a clear description ('login で取得したセッショントークン'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: '一覧表示' (list display) of '自分が登録したメモ' (user's own memos). Distinct from siblings like add_memo, delete_memo, login, register, so it unambiguously identifies the operation.

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?

Implies usage after login ('ログインが必要です'), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add_memo, delete_memo). No exclusions or alternative references are provided, making the guidance merely contextual rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core outcome (session token acquisition), but does not mention side effects, token expiration, security considerations, or what happens on invalid credentials.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter login tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and return value (session token). It lacks details like token format or usage in subsequent calls, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already name username and password. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating the authentication context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action: logging in with username and password and obtaining a session token. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like register and memo management tools by naming both the authentication mechanism and the specific output.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that login should precede authenticated memo operations, nor does it point to register as the alternative for new users.

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

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 that an account is created, but does not mention duplicate username handling, whether the user is auto-logged-in, password storage, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action and object.

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?

The tool is simple and parameters are fully documented, but there is no output schema or annotations. The description omits important operational context such as duplicate username errors, return values, or whether registration creates a session. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions username and password but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as uniqueness constraints or validation behavior.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('作成します') with a clear resource ('新しいアカウント') and method ('ユーザー名とパスワードで'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like login and memo operations as account creation.

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?

Usage is implied by '新しいアカウントを作成' and the presence of a sibling 'login' tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions such as 'do not use for existing users'.

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