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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the human-approval workflow: the edit is applied, the memory returns to PENDING, and the agent must ALWAYS inform the user that approval is pending. It also states that status changes are not possible, which prevents the agent from attempting unsupported operations. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations alone do not provide.

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 three focused sentences: purpose, behavioral consequence, and a mandatory user-facing instruction. There is no filler or redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and 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?

For a mutation tool with an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations already present, the description is complete. It covers the operation, the approval workflow, the required user notification, and the unsupported status-change operation. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little about the individual parameters—memory_id, type, title, content, and importance are already documented in the schema. The PATCH reference implies partial updates, but this is not elaborated in the description. The description does not compensate beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 resource: 'Correct an existing memory (PATCH /memories/{id}).' This clearly identifies the operation as an update to an existing memory, distinguishing it from sibling tools like solucortex_remember (creation), solucortex_list_memories/search/recall (retrieval), and solucortex_flag_memory (status change).

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 clearly states the tool is for correcting an existing memory and adds an explicit exclusion: 'Status changes are not possible here.' This gives the agent a clear when-to-use and a when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for creation or status changes, so it falls just short of a 5.

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