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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the persisted shape ({question, chosen, rejected[], reason, decided_by, date}), the 'decision' tag, and the link/rendering behavior. It does not warn that repeated calls are non-idempotent (duplicate decisions), which would have earned a 5.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence carries dense but useful information (storage shape, linking, use case). Marginally long, but every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description states what gets persisted and linked, which is sufficient to call it correctly. For a non-idempotent mutation it could note that each call creates a new stored decision, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 meaning by grouping the parameters into a coherent decision record ({question, chosen, rejected[], reason, decided_by, date}), letting an agent see how the fields relate rather than viewing nine isolated params.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Record a decision about a bundle' and it immediately defines the domain concept ('an ordered outline of memories') and the effect (attaches the reason to the governed item so it renders wherever that item does). An agent can tell this apart from generic memory tools. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (muninn_memory_add) as the thing it is not, so it is not a 5.

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?

'Use it for structural choices made in conversation that would otherwise be forgotten and argued again' gives a clear, concrete trigger condition. There is no explicit when-not clause or named alternative, so it falls short of the 5 bar that names an alternative tool.

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