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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent), and the description's "non-destructive" is consistent with them. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations — "The current revision is resolved at execution time," hinting at optimistic concurrency — plus the actorToken requirement. It still omits permission/audit consequences, failure behavior, and what a successful call returns.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and mode list, followed by the prerequisite and the concurrency note. No padding, though the mode enumeration partially duplicates the enum already in the schema.

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 12-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and no per-parameter schema descriptions, the description is under-specified. The critical information — which fields apply to which mode (e.g., result for VERIFY, targetEntry/supportingEntry for CONNECT/CONTRADICT) — is absent on both the schema and description sides.

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?

With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It restates the six mode values already present in the enum and mentions actorToken, but explains nothing about entry, rationale, content, summary, confidence, targetEntry, relationType, supportingEntry, or result — including which parameters each mode requires.

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 names the resource (existing Remnalis memory) and enumerates the six concrete modes of operation, so an agent understands this is a mode-driven update to an existing entry. However, the core verb is abstract ("make a non-destructive, auditable action") and it never contrasts itself with siblings like read_entry or search_memory, which is what an agent most needs here.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. "Requires actorToken" is a prerequisite, not usage guidance. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to reach for this versus read_entry, search_memory, or open_memory_work.

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