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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses the key side effect: the recorded failure 'is blocked next time,' framing the tool as a 'counter-pattern firewall.' It does not discuss duplicate/overwrite semantics or reversibility, but the principal persistent effect is explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states action and effect, the second tells the agent what to capture. The parenthetical metaphor is compact and does not detract.

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 simple four-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, key side effect, and the required input fields. It could mention the optional workspace default or how a blocked failure surfaces, but the schema already documents workspace and the core behavior is stated.

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. The description's 'Capture the scope, what it was tried on, and what went wrong' maps directly to scope/target/description but adds no new information beyond the property descriptions already present.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Record an approach that FAILED' and explains the intended consequence, 'so it is blocked next time.' It is clearly distinguishable from failure_check/resolve/list by its record action, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 clear context for use: after an approach has failed and should not be repeated. It implies the exclusion of non-failed approaches and does not mislead, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like wyrm_failure_check or wyrm_failure_resolve.

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