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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that consolidation is synchronous in dev so the fact is immediately recallable, that content over MAX_JSON_BYTES is rejected, and that a typed error is returned. This goes beyond the minimal mutation signal and is genuinely useful to an agent.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage, then key behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and the technical size limit is stated efficiently without padding.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, timing, exclusions, storage behavior, and size rejection. The main gap is the unexplained 'kind' parameter, which prevents full completeness but does not undermine the core invocation path.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly addresses the 'content' parameter via the size limit and never explains the 'kind' parameter or its default 'agent.observation'. An agent cannot learn from the description what values 'kind' accepts or when to override the default.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Memorize') and resource ('a durable project fact') and gives concrete examples: technical decision, convention, resolved error. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like haki_context, but the durable-fact framing is specific enough to be actionable.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call at the END of a task') and clear exclusions ('Never memorize secrets, tokens or ephemeral data'). It does not name alternative sibling tools or describe when to prefer them, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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