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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the effect is that recall stops returning the entry, the reason is required for everything except a finished task, and it returns the entry with its new status. The idempotency statement and "Free" duplicate idempotentHint and the read-only cost profile, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 the core action, alternatives, then effects and return value. Minor waste: "Free" appears in the body and again as a trailing "Free to call." line, and the idempotency note restates an annotation.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers effect on future recall, required reason semantics, idempotency, cost, and the return value (entry with new status). Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not encode: `reason` is required in practice for anything but a finished task, while the schema lists only `project` and `id` as required. That conditional requirement is genuinely useful beyond the structured fields.

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 (retire/mark done) and specific resources (decision, lesson, guardrail, note, task), and explicitly contrasts itself with record_entry with `supersedes`. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without reading 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 covers when to use it (entry no longer true, task done), when to use the alternative (replacing an entry → record_entry with `supersedes`), and notes that repeated retirement is a no-op. This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern done fully.

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