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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a persistent write operation ('durable', 'save') and that it is proactive and batched, but it does not disclose overwrite/merge behavior, idempotency, permissions, or side effects on existing storage. Core intent is clear, but consequential details are unspecified.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope ('Proactively batch-save durable knowledge... in ONE call'), then adds a terse usage heuristic. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 write tool with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description tells an agent what to capture, when to capture it, and that everything should be batched in one call. The workspace parameter is adequately handled by the schema, and the lack of return-value details is acceptable for a persistence operation.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds semantic grouping by mapping 'ground truths' to truths, 'lessons/decisions' to lessons, and 'quests' to quests, and 'capture signal, not chatter' helps agents judge what values are appropriate, which is value beyond the raw schema.

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 description clearly states a specific action—batch-saving durable knowledge—and lists the resources covered: ground truths, lessons/decisions, and quests. The 'in ONE call' phrasing differentiates it from single-purpose sibling tools like wyrm_truth_set or wyrm_quest_add, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: prefer this tool as decision-grade facts emerge, and don't wait to be asked. 'Capture signal, not chatter' implies when not to use it (for trivial conversation), but no specific sibling alternatives or strict exclusion conditions are named.

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