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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real substance: it names what happens per outcome and memory type (a proven-gone FACT is retired at once, a source_gone FINDING is archived, a conflict is corrected in place, rules/decisions are only marked). It does not state permission/auth requirements or the response shape, but the mutation consequences are unusually well specified.

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 critical rule is front-loaded, which is good, but the middle sentence is an ungrammatical fragment ('a conflicting one when you propose the correction with arroway_remember supersedes_id') and the FACT/FINDING clauses are dense jargon. Volume is reasonable; clarity-per-sentence is not.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers consequences adequately and needs no return-value detail. However, it assumes the reader already knows the FACT/FINDING/rules/decisions classification that governs which side effect fires, which is central to invoking the tool correctly and is never explained.

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 outcome enum semantics, the note requirements, and the memory handle format are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the outcome meanings but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema carries. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and object: record what a memory's source says, i.e. report the result of a source check. It distinguishes itself by describing the divergent side effects per outcome type (retire, archive, correct, mark) and names the sibling arroway_remember as the correction path. It loses a point because the operative taxonomy (FACT vs FINDING vs rules/decisions) is used without definition, so a cold reader cannot fully reconstruct what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (only when work already took you to the source) and when not to ('never go verifying memories as a task, never guess an outcome'). It also routes the agent to the alternative for corrections: arroway_remember with supersedes_id. This is the strongest part of the definition.

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