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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key behavior ('Replace' implies an overwriting mutation, 'private' implies sensitivity, 'for the current org' scopes it). However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, side effects beyond the soul, or what happens to existing content not included in the new body.

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 core purpose. The preference-absorption note is useful. Minor redundancy exists: 'Prefer compact structured markdown' largely repeats the schema's 'Compressed soul markdown... Keep short'.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the action, scope, and an interaction with memory_remember. Gaps are minor: no explicit routing to sibling tools and no disclosure of side-effect details like whether the previous soul is lost irreversibly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a stylistic preference for compact structured markdown, which overlaps with the schema's 'Keep short' guidance. It does not meaningfully add parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Replace'), resource ('this person's private soul'), and scope ('for the current org'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling memory_soul_get and other memory setter tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 note about memory_remember(kind=preference) absorbing into the soul gives indirect context about an alternative mechanism, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as memory_soul_get, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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