remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose several behavioral traits: it writes to both chains at once, is tamper-evident, and requires a born soul_id. Missing are failure semantics (e.g., partial chain failure), idempotency, and reversibility, so transparency is partial.

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 with no filler; the core action and scope are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated as a separate clarifying sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters including a nested object, yet the description omits what action should contain, what data is for, and what the tool returns on success or failure. An agent would need to infer or seek external information for safe invocation.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies the actor parameter ('Requires a born soul_id as actor'). Nothing is said about the meaning or expected format of action or data, leaving two of three parameters under-specified.

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 says 'Write a tamper-evident record to BOTH chains at once (local Humane + hosted ArkHive)' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. The dual-chain behavior clearly distinguishes it from reading/verifying siblings such as recall and verify.

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 'Requires a born soul_id as actor' prerequisite provides some contextual guidance, and the dual-chain write purpose implies when it should be used. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or statement of when not to use it.

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