procedure

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that procedures are stored, retrieved, and updated with effectiveness scores. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional details about the reinforcement mechanism.

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 well-structured with sections (actions, examples, args). It is front-loaded with a clear purpose and uses bullet points and examples efficiently. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool has 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: actions, parameter roles, examples, and defaults. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by listing each parameter with its purpose and conditions (e.g., 'text' is for learn, 'query' for surface, 'rid' for reinforce). This fully clarifies parameter semantics where the schema is silent.

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 defines the tool as 'procedural memory' with three distinct actions (learn, surface, reinforce), each with specific purposes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'memory', 'remember', and 'recall', which might have different scopes or behaviors.

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 provides explicit examples and explains when to use each action (e.g., 'learn' for storing, 'surface' for retrieval, 'reinforce' for updating effectiveness). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the clarity of actions and parameters effectively guides usage.

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