remember

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

Mentions hash-linked and tamper-evident, implying immutability and integrity. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., irreversibility), permission requirements, or failure behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially addresses it.

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 and an example, with the core action front-loaded. No redundant information, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 write tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter usage but omits guidance on when to use it and what happens after writing. It is adequate but not complete for a complex operation.

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?

The description clarifies the 'actor' parameter as a born soul_id or birth name, which is not in the schema. The example provides a concrete usage of all three parameters (actor, action, data), but does not explain the structure or constraints of 'data' beyond the example.

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?

Clearly states the tool writes a hash-linked, tamper-evident record, distinguishing it from siblings like recall (read) and verify (check). The example reinforces the purpose and the verb 'write' is explicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies storage via 'write' but does not state when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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