Etch Memory

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the write target (soul.fafm), the dedup/update-in-place semantics of re-etching an id, and the return payload. It does not warn about the destructiveHint=true aspect beyond noting in-place overwrite, and no permission or auth prerequisites are mentioned.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the mutation/dedup rule, then the usage pointer to the alternative. No filler and nothing buried.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description covers purpose, persistence target, dedup behavior, and the sibling relationship. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema (id dedup, path session context, tags, priority ranking). The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 (etch/remember) and resource (a memory written to soul.fafm), plus the storage mechanism (faf-cli's Soul). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling faf_recall, whose role is named explicitly.

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 a clear when: 'Use it to persist something an AI should recall later', and names the complementary reader faf_recall. It does not state any when-not conditions (e.g. don't etch ephemeral scratch state), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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