memoryguard_rule_merge_capability_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses that the token is opaque and single-use, requires a trusted admin AccessContext, is returned only once, and that persistent storage keeps only a hash. This gives an agent meaningful security-relevant behavior beyond basic intent, though it doesn't address idempotency or failure side effects.

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 sentences deliver the essential purpose, authorization requirement, and token-handling behavior with no redundant words. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds distinct value.

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 security-sensitive capability issuance tool with six parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the returned raw token should be used, what the response shape is, how ttl_seconds and idempotency_key behave, or how this capability is consumed by later steps like rule_merge_approve.

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 33%, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining proposal_id, mutation_receipt, idempotency_key, recovery_secret, ttl_seconds, or workspace. The phrase 'candidate proposal' hints at proposal_id, and 'single-use' relates loosely to token semantics, but most parameters remain unexplained, leaving an agent to guess their roles.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Issue one opaque, single-use rule-merge capability for a candidate proposal.' This clearly names the action, resource, and scope, and the 'capability' framing distinguishes it from siblings like rule_merge_approve and rule_merge_acknowledge.

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 to use the tool: for a candidate proposal, when in a trusted admin context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention the alternative merge-related tools or the expected sequence with rule_merge_approve/acknowledge. Usage context is present but exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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