Draft an entry for a person to review

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

Goes well past the annotations: declares it is 'the only write verb', that notes land in _staging/ with mandatory provenance, that malformed or paperless notes are refused, and that the call is non-blocking and returns the staged id, salience, a duplicate flag and a scripted line. With no output schema, this return-value disclosure is especially valuable.

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?

The opening 'Remembering means proposing' is a philosophical preamble that delays the operational content, and the middle sentence about contact details and labels is cryptic. The substantive material (staging location, refusal rules, return values, non-blocking behaviour) is present but scattered rather than front-loaded.

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 2-parameter nested write tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond safety hints, the description covers lifecycle placement, refusal conditions, non-blocking semantics and return contents. The main gap is guidance on the nested note fields (partition/store/impact/supersedes) that the schema leaves undescribed.

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 reported at 0%, so the description has to carry the load, and it only partially does: 'mandatory provenance' explains the provenance object's role and the 'paperless' refusal clarifies source is required, plus a hint about labelling untrusted content (taint). It says nothing about note.partition, note.store, note.impact, note.supersedes or how tags are used.

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 ('Stage a memory candidate for the person's review') and pins down the scope: it writes only into _staging/ and 'never touches canon'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming keep as the act that makes the note Memory, so an agent can tell staging apart from promotion.

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 clear operating context: 'It never waits and asks nothing: keep working', and 'Ask about what you staged only at a pause (see pending), never mid-work' routes follow-up questions to the pending sibling. It doesn't spell out when staging is inappropriate versus just using retrieve, but the alternative paths are named.

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