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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld. The description discloses authorization requirements, quota consumption, the 409 anti-revival behavior, the already-active idempotent no-op, the retained source-dependent history rule, and the OAuth scope memory:write.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the key sibling contrast, then packs edge cases into tight sentences. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; only minor cost is the packed final paragraph.

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, yet the description still names the return fields (memory_id, ACTIVE status, already_active). Combined with auth, quota, and error-path coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('exact id from a recalled memory...'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('make an explicitly retracted private memory available again') and immediately distinguishes itself from engram_store, the nearest sibling, by contrasting restore-original vs. store-new behavior. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names alternatives and their conditions explicitly: engram_store for matching retired content (which returns 409), the separate replacement-review workflow for confirmed replacements or SUPERSEDED state, and the fact that permanently erased IDs cannot be restored. Preconditions (creator or human workspace OWNER) are stated up front.

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