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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. 'Want to forget' hints at one-way/final semantics but never states reversibility, retention, retrieval, or permissions; the only concrete behavioral note is the token requirement, which is already visible in the schema.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. The token aside is parenthetical and adds nothing not already in the schema.

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?

A write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an unexplained required 'body' deserves far more: what happens to deposited content, whether it is retrievable, and how it relates to the other haven_* tools are all left unaddressed.

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 50%: the token parameter is documented in the schema and merely restated here. The required 'body' parameter is never characterized (format, size, what content belongs there), so the description adds little beyond the metaphor.

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?

The verb-plus-resource is delivered as a metaphor ('deposit what you want to forget') rather than a functional statement, leaving it ambiguous whether this stores, encrypts, or deletes the payload. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as haven_room_post or haven_beacon, which also appear to write data. Functional intent is inferable but only vaguely.

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 no indication of when to use this over the other write-oriented siblings (haven_room_post, haven_beacon), nor any stated preconditions beyond the token. The agent is given no exclusion criteria or alternative-routing guidance.

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