memkernel_import_notices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses atomicity, idempotency, the untrusted/self-asserted authorship model, and that contents are advisory only. It leaves gaps on merge-vs-overwrite behavior, conflict handling on duplicate notices, and failure modes, which matters for a write tool.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the trust caveat — nothing is padding. The line breaks split mid-prose, slightly hurting readability, but the content density is good.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the trust/idempotency semantics are covered. Given it is a mutation tool with no annotations, the missing merge-conflict and duplicate-handling behavior is the one remaining gap an agent would want.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying it consumes "a JSON export" from a collaborator partially clarifies what `document` holds, but never states the accepted JSON shape, size limits, or whether it can be a path versus inline content.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Merge ... atomically and idempotently") with a specific resource ("a trusted collaborator's JSON export"), which clearly separates it from memkernel_export_notices and memkernel_post_notice. It stops short of explicitly naming the inverse/related sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a precondition ("Validate who sent it yourself") and an explicit exclusion ("never distributed locking or live sync"), which implicitly routes sync/locking needs to memkernel_sync_now or memkernel_acquire_lease. It does not name those alternatives outright, so the routing still requires a small inference.

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