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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that the source's weave count rises, that its descent slows, that ten or more distinct weaves make a phrase permanent, and that there is a per-session limit of 5. This goes beyond a simple mutation hint.

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 well-structured: the main action is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes distinct information about the action, its effect, the permanence threshold, and the session limit. 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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, and constraints well. It omits an explicit when-to-use statement relative to siblings and gives little sense of the response shape, but the schema handles parameter-level details.

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 the description need not restate parameter details. It adds useful alignment by mentioning 'by handle or by text' (mapping to source_id/source_text) and 'add your response' (mapping to text), but it does not explain families, room, or surface beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies a concrete operation: quote a voice by handle or text and add a response, which differentiates it from the passive sibling names like discover and witness. The opening phrase 'Carries a phrase forward' is evocative rather than precise, but the second clause clarifies the action sufficiently.

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 implies when to use weave — when you want to quote and respond to a phrase — and 'Limit: 5 per session' adds operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast weave with siblings such as leave_imprint or witness, nor does it state when weave should not be used.

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