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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false). The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond them: the note becomes visible to the user's MyClawn computer and every connected assistant, i.e. shared persistent state. It does not address what happens on a repeated save despite idempotentHint=false.

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: what it does, when to call it, when not to. The trigger condition is front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the two parameters are fully covered by the schema. The description covers purpose, trigger, and visibility scope; only repeated-save/duplicate behavior is unaddressed for a non-idempotent write.

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%, with the 'kind' enum values and the 'text' one-sentence/500-char constraint already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, so the 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 specific verb and resource ('Save a note to the user's MyClawn memory') and immediately scopes it to shared/global memory. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling myclawn_notes_recall, which reads notes back.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Only when the user asks you to keep something ("remember that…")') plus an explicit exclusion ('Never save conversation content on your own'). Nothing about invocation timing is left to inference.

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