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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose what is loaded and that focus biases memory. However, it does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it mutates session state, or what the agent should expect back, which matters for a system-level priming action.

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 every part contributing: the primary purpose and contents are front-loaded, followed by timing and an analogy. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers what the tool loads and when to call it. It misses an explicit note on return behavior/side effects and should address the sibling wyrm_session_rehydrate to remove ambiguity, but overall an agent can invoke it correctly.

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 focus and workspace are already well documented. The description adds a small behavioral note that focus selects the most relevant memory, but workspace requires no extra clarification; given the high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it loads this account's working context at session start, enumerating ground truths, open quests, active failures, and optionally memory. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wyrm_session_rehydrate, and its 'cloud equivalent of Claude Code's session rehydrate' phrasing actually risks colliding with that sibling's name.

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?

'Call this first' and 'at the start of a session' give an explicit, concrete trigger for using the tool. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as wyrm_recall or wyrm_session_rehydrate, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.

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