Create a portable context envelope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a privacy-relevant behavior — scope is limited to explicitly selected material, not the host's complete history — but says nothing about what gets persisted, whether the envelope is durable or ephemeral, consent requirements, or side effects. This is meaningful but partial disclosure for an 8-param mutation-adjacent 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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the positive action is front-loaded and the 'does not read history' caveat follows immediately. Slightly terse given the parameter surface, but structurally sound.

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 tool with 8 undocumented parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only about half the surface. An agent can tell roughly what the tool does but not how to populate intent, locale, game_preferences or social_preference, nor what the resulting envelope contains.

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 8 parameters. The description names interests, time and content excerpts, which loosely maps to interests, available_time_minutes/expires_in_minutes and selected_excerpts, but intent, locale, game_preferences and social_preference remain undocumented in both schema and description. It compensates for only part of the gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource: packaging user-explicitly-selected interests, time and content excerpts into a portable Context Envelope. It also states a negative scope ('does not read the host's full history'), which helps distinguish it from full-history tools. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like create_experience_draft or create_public_topic.

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 implies when the tool applies (only when the user has explicitly opted to share context) and rules out one alternative behavior (reading full history). It never names a sibling tool or states explicit when-not conditions, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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