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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that: exactly what is preserved (key, position, links, children) versus what changes (the shown memory), which is the key behavioral fact for this tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by preservation semantics, usage trigger, and the parameter format note. The parenthetical defining 'bundle' earns its place by grounding the domain term, and nothing is redundant.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, usage, and preservation behavior. It omits failure/error behavior and permission requirements, but the annotations and simplicity of the tool make those minor gaps.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there. The description's note that newMemId accepts a full or 8-char prefix merely restates the schema's own description, so it adds no information beyond structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (repoint) and resource (an item/node in a bundle), and defines what a bundle is in-line. It clearly delineates the operation from siblings like muninn_bundle_node_delete and muninn_bundle_node_create by specifying that key, position, links and children are preserved and only the pointed-to memory changes.

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-to-use trigger ('when a newer memory replaces the one an item showed') and names the competing approach (removing and re-adding the item) along with its downside. It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool as the alternative, but the routing condition is clear.

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