memory_write_confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it delivers. It discloses expiry, the cases that can fire (expired vs. never-existed), re-gated outcomes (duplicate, previously_removed, credential_warning), and that the staged write survives with pending_retained: true. This is rich behavioral detail beyond a simple commit operation.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds essential information: the commit action, the pending_id source, expiry, re-gating cases, and survival behavior. No fluff, but it could be slightly more concise by grouping related facts. Overall, efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what triggers the commit, possible outcomes, and the effects on the staged write. It doesn't explain the output schema itself (not required) but provides enough context to use the tool correctly. Slightly missing is the exact meaning of 'committed' versus other outcomes, but that's implied.

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 sole parameter pending_id has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description explains it comes from the memory_write response that returned 'pending'. This adds meaningful context to an otherwise bare string parameter, though it doesn't specify format or constraints. Given the single parameter, this is sufficient.

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: 'Commit a memory_write that returned status='pending''. This clearly states the tool's action and target, distinguishing it from siblings like memory_write_cancel. The mention of pending_id further clarifies its role as a confirmation step.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (after a memory_write returned 'pending'), and provides guidance on alternatives: 'memory_write_cancel or resolve the match' when the staged write survives. It also warns about the 1-hour expiry and possible re-gated outcomes, giving clear context for decision-making.

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