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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the traceability intent but omits whether the referenced truths must already exist, what happens on invalid refs, permission requirements, or how this relates to the invalidation workflow.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and its payoff with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it could carry one more clause of operational detail at no real cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core purpose is stated. For a no-annotation mutation tool with two undocumented parameters, however, more behavioral context is warranted than is provided.

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 'because' and 'workspace' params are documented in the schema, while 'decision' and 'rationale' are not. The description gestures at 'decision' and 'ground truths' but leaves the distinction between 'decision' and 'rationale' unexplained, so it only partially compensates.

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 gives a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('a decision and the ground truths it rests on'), making the operation clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like wyrm_capture, wyrm_remember, or wyrm_decision_trace, which a reader must infer.

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?

The description explains the value ('so the rationale survives and can be traced when a truth later changes') but never states when to use this versus alternatives such as wyrm_remember or wyrm_capture, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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