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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it is a mutation tool. It never states persistence lifetime, dedup/overwrite behavior on repeat writes, required auth, or whether writes are idempotent. 'Distilled' hints that content should be curated rather than raw, which is the only behavioral signal offered.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with zero filler. It is tightly written, though at this level of schema complexity the brevity contributes to the gaps scored in other dimensions.

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, but with 8 parameters, 38% description coverage, no annotations, and multiple near-sibling write tools, the description leaves an agent unable to decide when this tool is correct or how to fill the required fields meaningfully.

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 only 38% (3 of 8 properties documented: tags, workspace, confidence), so the description must compensate and does not. It adds nothing about problem, why, solution, or outcome, and the kind list merely restates the enum rather than explaining how each kind should be written.

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?

Specific verb ('Store') plus a named resource ('distilled knowledge artifact') and it enumerates the five kind values that match the schema enum, so the scope is legible. It does not differentiate from siblings like wyrm_capture, wyrm_truth_set, or wyrm_failure_record, which plausibly also persist content.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to choose wyrm_remember over wyrm_capture (which sounds like the raw-input counterpart) or whether it should precede wyrm_recall/wyrm_search. The agent must infer the trigger from the tool name alone.

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