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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description goes well beyond that: it states the exact return shape ({success, memoryId, length}), explains that length is the self-verify signal and the body is never echoed, and documents defaulting behavior and the downstream effect of hideRank on Ranking and boot.

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?

Purpose and return contract are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then parameter rules follow in priority order. Slightly overstuffed with em-dash asides such as "(the full body is never echoed; you just sent it)", but nothing is truly wasted.

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 six-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contract and the non-obvious parameter decisions, which is the bulk of what an agent needs. It stops short of situating the call relative to append/update, leaving one ambiguity for a tool with many write siblings.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds operational rules the schema alone doesn't state as a decision rule — the concrete hideRank:true list (session state, checkpoints, carryover, logs) and the occurredAt backfill case. That is meaningful guidance beyond field-level docs.

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?

"Store a new memory with text content and tags" gives a specific verb and resource, and the return-shape sentence reinforces that this is a creation call. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like muninn_memory_append or muninn_memory_update, which an agent could plausibly reach for instead.

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?

There is real conditional guidance: pass occurredAt only when the event happened at a different time than now, and pass hideRank:true for operational memories. What's missing is tool-selection guidance against the other write-path siblings (append, update, anchor_replace).

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