memory_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the signing scheme (EIP-191 personal_sign), the ephemeral 5-minute timestamp window, and the single-use nonce that forces a fresh prepare for every call. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent must know before invoking, none of which appear in structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the critical 'prepare again for every call' constraint. Every clause adds actionable information with no repetition.

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 negotiation/prepare tool with no output schema, the description states what is returned (message_to_sign plus timestamp and nonce) and the full signing protocol. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `operation` selects which memory_* tool will be called, and `params` are the arguments forwarded verbatim to that tool, which the schema only hints at. It does not enumerate the operation-to-tool mapping values, but the schema's enum-style list covers that.

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 and resource: returns the exact `message_to_sign` for the Wicked Memory signing flow, and its position as 'step 1 of every call'. It is unmistakably distinct from the memory_store/search/get/update/delete siblings it feeds into.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and sequencing: sign the message with EIP-191 personal_sign, then call the matching memory_* tool with the SAME arguments plus the returned timestamp, nonce and signature. It also states the operating constraints (timestamp within 5 minutes, single-use nonce, re-prepare for every call), leaving no inference required.

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