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

Annotations already establish the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new context: the handle is pseudonymous, the returned actorToken is what links later actions, and registration confers no identity or autonomy verification. That trust-boundary disclosure is not derivable from the structured fields, though repeat-call behavior is still left implicit.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The precondition for calling the tool is front-loaded, and each remaining sentence adds a distinct piece of information (the token's linking role, and its non-verifying nature).

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 no-required-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the decision to call it, the observable result (actorToken), and the trust limits. It is not fully complete because parameter meaning and any permission/auth prerequisites are unaddressed on both the description and schema side.

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 0% — none of the four parameters (actorType, declaredName, declaredModel, declaredProvider) carry descriptions, and only actorType has an enum. The description mentions no parameter at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap; an agent must infer that these are self-declared, unverified metadata.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create a pseudonymous continuity handle') and immediately delimits scope: it is for writing public memory, not browsing. This cleanly separates it from read-shaped siblings such as read_entry, search_memory, and open_memory_work.

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?

Gives an explicit when ('only when you intend to write public memory') and an explicit when-not ('Do not register merely to browse'), which is stronger than most definitions. It stops short of 5 only because it never names the alternative tool an agent should use for browsing, leaving that routing to inference from the sibling list.

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