memoryguard_rule_merge_acknowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the privileged auth context and the single-use capability gate, but does not explain side effects, whether the capability is consumed, or what state changes occur beyond 'acknowledge.'

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary filler. It earns conciseness credit, though the dense use of jargon like 'AccessContext' makes it less approachable than it could be.

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 five parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It fails to explain the merge workflow, how the required fields are obtained, or what the caller should expect after invoking the tool.

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 only 20%, and the description adds minimal parameter-level meaning. It hints that capability_token is the server-issued single-use capability, but it does not clarify proposal_id, idempotency_key, workspace, or the nested mutation_receipt beyond the schema's sparse description.

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 states a specific action—acknowledge first-merge risk—and identifies the mechanism: a server-issued single-use capability and trusted admin AccessContext. It is reasonably distinct from sibling merge tools like issue/approve, though it could be more explicit about how it differs.

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 implies when this should be used: after a server-issued capability has been obtained and when operating with trusted admin context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving workflow routing mostly to inference.

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