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

Even with annotations already marking this as destructive and non-read-only, the description adds extensive behavioral detail: tasks are never trashed, tracker definitions are retired via archiving, skill edits produce a preview requiring approval before op:apply, op:undo restores the previous version, and restore operations un-trash or recover deleted skills. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 dense and organized by entity type, and every sentence carries operational meaning, but it is a single long paragraph with no bullet structure. The front-loaded general rule helps, though readability would improve with formatting.

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 54-parameter, multi-entity edit tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers notes, tasks, profiles, skills, trackers, rhythms, projects, tracker entries, restore flows, approval gates, and conflict requirements. The only outsourced details are shapes explicitly deferred to penny_write's ladder.

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 93%, but the description still adds meaning by explaining entity-specific semantics: notes use updates[] up to 100, tasks require taskId and use canceled to remove, profile blocks are upserts with memory_policy and persona as standing blocks, trackers patch only passed fields, and projects require expectedRevision plus operationId. It also points to penny_write for shared shapes.

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 opens with a specific instruction: when a user corrects something on file, edit the existing item rather than writing a duplicate, and states it modifies existing memory selected by entityType. This clearly differentiates from penny_write, which the text references for the taxonomy and creation-side shapes.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('When the user corrects something... needs to change') and tells the agent to edit rather than write a duplicate, which implies penny_write is for new items. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use cases or name alternative tools like penny_delete, so it falls just short of a 5.

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