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

Adds substantial behavior beyond what annotations provide: a memory move is only PROPOSED and waits for human review, whereas a log entry move happens immediately with text unchanged, plus the note that moving changes who sees it. These are exactly the workflow and visibility consequences an agent must know, and they are consistent with the annotations (non-destructive, idempotent).

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: the action, the memory path with its review gate, and the log path with text preservation. No filler and the high-value distinction is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter, all-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral divergence (review vs immediate) and the visibility implication. It could note any permission or precondition requirements, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including why, memory handle, and the today-vs-target project slugs. The description reinforces the 'why' semantics and the immediacy of log moves but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (move) and resource (memory or log entry) and clarifies the target concept ('the project it belongs in'). The word 'something' is a bit loose, but the body immediately disambiguates into the two moveable things, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like arroway_remember or arroway_log.

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?

Describes the two usage paths (memory vs log entry) and their differing outcomes, which effectively tells the agent when each case applies. It does not name an alternative tool for related operations, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternative standard.

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