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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the ACLs checked (memory_put/memory_get), the metering cost (1 kvp_ops per call), the exact return shapes for both actions, and the read/write asymmetry of the actions. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then behavior, then alternatives; every sentence earns its place. Slightly dense with parenthetical ACL/metering clauses, but none are wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by spelling out the return objects for both actions. Combined with the scope/namespace semantics and the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that the run scope maps to the run key's bound namespace (or 'run' when unbound) and that put returns budget/keyBudget meters. That goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 specific verbs and resources ('Store and read short strings') and enumerates the exact scopes (prefs, facts, run), which immediately distinguishes it from the generic manage_kv sibling. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent: semantic recall goes to search_documents source=memory, other namespaces to manage_kv, and run-namespace cleanup to finish_run. It also states exclusions ('No deletes and no email'), covering when-not as well as when.

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