Attest that a phrasing/id denotes an existing object

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: it records a 'signed equivalence' and persists into a shared reference graph that affects future `emem_entity_resolve` calls. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 description is well-structured with a clear main statement, a 'When to use' section, and a concrete example. Every sentence contributes value, and the information is 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage, effect on future resolve calls, and provides an example. It does not describe failure modes, prerequisites (e.g., the entity must already exist), or the exact return format, but given no output schema and the complexity level, it is largely complete.

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 four parameters. The description provides a concrete example of `entity_token` and `alias` usage, but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Record a signed equivalence: bind an alternate label or a stable external id ... to an existing canonical object.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing `emem_entity_resolve` and the shared reference graph.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' section provides explicit use cases: learning two phrasings denote the same object or attaching an external id to an object minted from free text. It implies the effect on `emem_entity_resolve` but does not mention when NOT to use it or explicitly compare with sibling tools.

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