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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does disclose the key trait: this is a persistent write whose effect is that the approach is blocked on future attempts (the 'counter-pattern firewall'). It does not cover permissions, reversibility/removal (a sibling wyrm_failure_resolve exists), or deduplication of repeated failures, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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 tight sentence front-loads the action and its effect, with the parenthetical framing the mechanism and a second clause enumerating the payload. No filler sentences.

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 4-parameter, non-nested tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description plus schema cover what to record and why. It stops short of explaining the workspace scoping semantics or how blocked entries are later resolved, which a caller of this mutation tool would benefit from.

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 the properties already define scope, target, workspace and description; the baseline here is 3. The sentence 'Capture the scope, what it was tried on, and what went wrong' restates three of those fields but adds no format, granularity or naming-convention detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (record a FAILED approach) and adds the consequence (blocked next time), which clearly separates it from wyrm_failure_list, wyrm_failure_check and wyrm_failure_resolve. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the routing is inferable but not spelled out.

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 phrase 'so it is blocked next time' implies the use case (call this after a failed attempt to prevent repetition), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no ordering guidance relative to wyrm_failure_check, and no note about when NOT to record. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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