Compose a memory_token citation handle

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

Annotations already indicate `idempotentHint=true`, `readOnlyHint=true`, and `destructiveHint=false`, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining validation rules ('Validates both components are non-empty and free of the `:` separator') and the exact format of the output ('emem:fact:<cell64>:<fact_cid>'). It does not contradict 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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a concise algebra metaphor, then a clear 'When to use' section, and finally comparisons to siblings. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition or fluff.

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 tool with 3 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns (implied by the format string), and how it relates to sibling tools. The validation behavior is also mentioned.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add new information about parameters beyond what is already in the schema's property descriptions. The mention of 'band' in the usage section does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Mint a citation handle') and clearly identifies the resource (a memory_token citation string). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly mentioning alternatives like `emem_entity` and `emem_memory_bundle`.

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 states when to use this tool: 'when the agent wants a single rebindable string to cite a place plus an attested fact'. It also provides clear exclusions and alternatives, such as using `emem_entity` for objects and `emem_memory_bundle` for multiple facts, and pairs it with `emem_verify_receipt` for verification.

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