memory_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the optimistic-concurrency contract for put and the leased nature of lock, but omits what happens on a version conflict, whether lock blocks other writers, and any auth or persistence scope beyond 'same daemon'. Partial but genuinely additive.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, then the two most consequential behavioral clauses, then the alias. Dense and free of filler, though the alias parenthetical is slightly awkwardly placed.

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 nine-parameter, seven-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the versioning and lease mechanics but leaves action semantics (especially watch_hint and unlock) unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters (including base_version's 'omit or 0 to create'). The description's summary that put 'requires base_version' slightly overstates the schema, which allows omission for creation. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the core resource and model clearly: shared, versioned artifacts between agents on the same daemon and peers. It does not enumerate the seven actions, nor does it distinguish itself from the many similarly named sibling alias tools (cuba_artefacto, memory_archivo, cuba_pizarra), so an agent still needs the schema to know what operations exist.

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?

Gives two action-specific conditions ('put requires base_version', 'lock is a short lease') but no when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, no prerequisites, and no explanation of the remaining actions (get, list, patch, unlock, watch_hint). Usage is implied by the action enum rather than directed.

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