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

Annotations only indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds real behavioral context: it writes an immutable consent row, returns a grant receipt, and carries compliance and cost implications. This fills in a fair amount beyond the annotations, though it could further disclose the effect of repeated grants or revocation.

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 sentences convey the core action, the result (receipt and immutable row), compliance context, and cost. Every sentence contributes meaningful, non-obvious information. The most essential purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 fairly complex mutation tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts and financial/legal constraints. It is slightly light on prerequisites for the wallet_signature and any explicit pointer to revocation, but the output schema and thorough input schema compensate.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only refers generically to 'specified memory entries.' Thus it neither hurts nor improves the agent's understanding of the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Grant'), the resource ('memory entries'), the recipient ('another wallet') and the scoping constraint ('time-bounded'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like memory.revoke (which removes access) and memory.write (which writes memory content). An agent can assign the tool's role immediately.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: to give another wallet temporary, category-scoped access to memory entries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the full when-not guidance, but the intended context is unambiguous from the phrasing.

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