memoryguard_rule_merge_cooldown_clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that this tool mutates state by clearing a cooldown and that the capability is single-use, but it does not describe side effects, idempotency behavior, error cases, or what happens when the capability is invalid or already consumed.

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 that states the action and key prerequisites without redundancy. It loses a point because "trusted admin AccessContext" is inserted as if it were an input or context parameter, which may confuse an agent given that no such parameter appears in the schema.

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?

This is a mutation tool with five parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a high-level statement. An agent would not know how to construct the required inputs, what success or failure looks like, or how this fits into the broader rule-merge workflow.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It vaguely explains capability_token as a "server-issued single-use capability" and mentions an AccessContext that is not in the schema, but it does not clarify proposal_id, idempotency_key, workspace, or mutation_receipt semantics beyond the schema's own minimal receipt 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 names a specific action and resource: "Clear one rule-merge proposal cooldown." This distinguishes it from related rule-merge siblings like approve, acknowledge, and capability_issue, though it does not explicitly contrast them. The phrase "trusted admin AccessContext" is somewhat vague but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 requirement for a "server-issued single-use capability and trusted admin AccessContext" implies prerequisites and operating context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over related rule-merge tools like rule_merge_approve or rule_merge_acknowledge, nor does it describe conditions when it should not be used.

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