faf_etch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it writes to a specific file (.fafm), providing some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe dedup behavior or side effects, which are partially covered in schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. 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?

Given 6 parameters, output schema exists, and schema covers all parameters, the description is adequate but not overly informative. It omits mentioning dedup or update behavior, which is only in schema.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it only summarizes the purpose of 'text' vaguely.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Etch' (save memory) and resource 'memory to project soul', and distinguishes from siblings like faf_recall by indicating it writes persistent memories across sessions. It provides specific examples (decision, gotcha, win).

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?

Description implies usage when needing to remember something across sessions, especially decisions, gotchas, or wins. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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