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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: add/update only, nothing is ever deleted, "we only do X" replaces rather than appends to a field, and excluded companies stay out of new results. It also discloses the return shape (a short confirmation plus changed/change_id) and links change_id to undo_change, which matters since there is no output schema. Consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the trailing sentences each carry weight (replacement semantics, return value, undo link). However, the first sentence is a long comma-spliced enumeration of fact categories that could be tightened without losing 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?

Covers everything needed for a memory-write tool with only two parameters and no output schema: when to call, what to pass verbatim, how pronouns are resolved, how field replacement works, what comes back, and how to reverse it via undo_change.

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%, yet the description still adds real meaning: pass the rep's words verbatim and in full, and supply companies currently on screen, in order, so pronouns like "them" and "the second one" resolve. That is usage semantics the schema's terse field descriptions do not convey.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("sharpens the rep's firm profile") plus the payoff ("so Whimbrel surfaces more relevant medical device companies"), then enumerates exactly what kinds of facts it captures. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling forget, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: "Call it the moment the rep says remember, keep, note or save this about their firm, and for what they mention in passing." It also states the exclusion path — a forget request returns to_forget and deletes nothing — so the agent knows which sibling takes that case.

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