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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the returned payload (source, format, title, provenance, published/publicUrl, expiresAt/expired), that a published link auto-refreshes, and that `rev` must be returned as `expectedRev` on later writes or the write FAILS rather than clobbering a concurrent edit. The conflict-detection semantics are the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return contents, then the write-back routing, then the rev/expectedRev caveat. The final sentence is long and dense, and a few clauses (e.g. the parenthetical field list) border on enumeration for its own sake, but every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value disclosure, and it does, enumerating the fields returned and the conditional publish/expiry fields. Combined with the write-path and revision guidance, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool meaning the schema cannot: the artifactId IS the memoryId, so the same value is what you pass to the memory write tools. That reframes the single parameter usefully, exceeding the schema's 'full UUID or unique prefix' note.

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 and resource ('Retrieve a stored artifact by ID') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like muninn_artifact_list by scoping to a single artifact, and clarifies the artifactId/memoryId identity that separates it from muninn_memory_get. An agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 explicit context ('continue working on something a previous session... produced') and, more valuably, routes writes to muninn_memory_update / muninn_memory_anchor_replace / muninn_memory_append while stating there is no muninn_artifact_update. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over muninn_memory_get, which retrieves by the same identifier.

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