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 idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. The description adds behavioral context: the tool creates a 'signed equivalence' and builds a shared reference graph. While it mentions signing, it doesn't detail authentication requirements or side effects beyond idempotency. Overall, it provides useful transparency.

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 concise: two paragraphs with no redundancy. The first explains functionality, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers the main functionality but does not mention the return value or any confirmation message. Given that the tool records information, the output is likely a receipt, but this is not stated. Minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining 'alias' is an alternate label, clarifying the two ways to specify the target (entity_cid vs entity_token), and enumerating stable ID types for external_ids. This goes beyond the minimal schema descriptions.

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 records a signed equivalence binding alternate labels or external IDs to a canonical object. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it builds the shared reference graph for future emem_entity_resolve calls. The verb 'record' and 'bind' are specific and action-oriented.

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?

The description explicitly provides a 'When to use' section, specifying two clear scenarios: learning that two phrasings denote the same object, or attaching an authoritative external ID. This gives the agent precise guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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