Create conclusion

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the approval requirement and the durable nature of the conclusion, which is valuable. However, it does not mention what happens on rejection or if the conclusion can be edited, but the core behavior is transparent enough for an agent.

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 front-loads the purpose and then adds the approval condition. It is efficient with no filler, making it easy to parse. However, it is very brief and could potentially include more context without becoming verbose.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the significance of namespace, source, expiresAt, or evidenceIds, nor does it clarify how the approval workflow integrates with sibling tools like approve_conclusion. An agent would likely need additional context to use this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the tool description does not mention any of the parameters. It fails to explain tags, source, expiresAt, namespace, or evidenceIds, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these fields. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides for the text parameter.

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 tool proposes a durable, higher-signal conclusion, using a specific verb (propose) and resource (conclusion). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remember or recall_memory by focusing on conclusions rather than raw memories, though it could be more explicit about the distinction.

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 mentions that approval is required by default before recall, which implies it is for long-term conclusions needing review. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like remember or list_conclusions, nor does it name specific alternatives or conditions for choosing them.

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