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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by explaining the side effect (the seed 'stops riding along in responses') and the staleness signal (memory_seed.stale at next orientation). That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, missing only details like error behavior if the version is wrong.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the consequences; every clause carries information. The nested parenthetical path is slightly dense but earns its place by grounding the parameter.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive write tool with an output schema already covering the response, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what to send, that it is optional, and what changes afterward.

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% — the schema only calls the field an integer 'Version'. The description compensates by identifying exactly which value belongs there: the seed_version previously read from get_orientation.memory_seed, which prevents an agent from guessing.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Record') with a specific resource ('the memory seed version') and anchors the value to its source (get_orientation.memory_seed.seed_version). It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the other ack_* siblings (ack_alert, ack_constitution, ack_inbox).

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?

It gives clear context: the call is optional and 'never a gate', and it should be made after the seed version has been stored in long-term memory. It does not name an alternative tool or state a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls 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.