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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait, automatic conflict detection, but does not explain what happens on conflict: rejection, merge, overwrite, or error. For a mutating tool, the side effects and outcome remain unclear.

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 one tight sentence with no filler: 'Manually add a memory' is front-loaded and 'Performs automatic conflict detection' adds a distinct behavioral point. Every word 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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description leaves key operational unknowns: conflict resolution behavior, return/error format, and relationship to memory_replace/memory_consolidate. The schema covers parameters well but not runtime behavior.

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 even though the description itself adds no parameter detail. Key format, value length constraint, tier meaning, importance scale, and attribute categories are all documented in the input schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Manually add a memory.' It also mentions a distinguishing behavior, automatic conflict detection. Among siblings like memory_search, memory_replace, and memory_consolidate, the add intent is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with updating/consolidating existing memories.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Manually' hints that there may be an automated memory-adding path, but it never says when to choose memory_add over memory_replace or memory_consolidate, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that dry_run=true (default) only reports candidates, which is valuable. But it does not say what a non-dry-run merge does to the original memories, whether it is reversible, or what output is returned. Partial transparency.

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?

One sentence with the key operation first, then the safety default. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite dry-run safety, a merge operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no description of what merging does to existing memories is incomplete. An agent cannot predict the consequences of dry_run=false or what the candidate report looks like.

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 schema documents threshold but not dry_run. The description compensates by explaining dry_run's meaning and default behavior, so the agent understands the safe mode. Threshold's meaning is inferable from vector similarity context and the schema already covers it.

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?

States the exact operation (find and merge near-duplicate memories), the criterion (vector similarity), and the default behavior (dry_run only reports candidates). Clearly distinct from memory_search/add/replace/remove by the consolidation goal.

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?

Implies use for deduplication via near-duplicate detection, and dry_run behavior is explained. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs memory_replace/remove, no conditions for when consolidation is appropriate, and no exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully reveal that deletion is soft and data is retained, which is meaningful context. However, it does not mention what happens if the memory does not exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or whether there is any way to restore the memory later.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and then clarifies the soft-delete behavior. Every word 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 simple single-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the essential behavior: soft deletion and data retention. It does not describe the response or error behavior, but given the simplicity of the operation and the fully documented parameter, the missing details are minor.

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% and the only parameter, 'id', is already described as 'Memory ID.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('soft-delete') and the resource ('a memory'), and adds a distinguishing detail: 'status marked as deleted, data retained.' This separates it from memory_replace and memory_consolidate by emphasizing deletion rather than modification.

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 the tool is used when a memory should be deleted, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools such as memory_replace or memory_consolidate. No alternative tools or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that the old value is marked superseded, the new value becomes active, and full history is preserved. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover failure behavior or access requirements.

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 two short sentences with no filler, front-loads the core operation, and uses the second sentence to convey the important state transition and history guarantee. Every word 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, the state transition, and the preservation guarantee. It is reasonably complete, though it does not state what happens when the key does not exist.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; the replacement semantics are behavioral rather than parameter-level.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Replace a memory') and explains the replace semantics (old value superseded, new value active). It is clear and distinct from siblings like memory_add or memory_remove, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 this tool is for updating an existing memory, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus memory_add, memory_remove, or memory_consolidate. There are no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.

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

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already conveys the safe read-only nature. The description adds transparency about the internal search mechanisms (exact match and semantic vector search), which is useful context beyond the annotation. It does not describe return format or edge cases, but this is not critical for a search 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?

The description is a single, well-crafted sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's hybrid nature and key features, adhering to concise and front-loaded structure.

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 straightforward search tool, the description provides adequate context. It does not mention output format or pagination, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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 descriptions cover query and top_k. The tool description adds significant semantic detail about the query parameter—specifically that it supports Chinese substring matching and semantic similarity—which enhances understanding of how the query is interpreted beyond the generic schema description.

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 clearly states the tool performs a hybrid memory search using FTS5/trigram exact match and HNSW vector semantic search. It also mentions Chinese substring matching, making the purpose highly specific and distinct from sibling tools like add, replace, or remove.

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 usage for searching memories but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No direct comparison with sibling tools is provided, though the search-oriented name and functionality make the use case reasonably clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds specific behavioral context by enumerating exactly what information is returned (active count, total records, vector index status), which helps the agent set expectations for the response. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'View memory system status' followed by a colon-separated list of returned items. It is concise, structured, and every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 no parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool does and what it returns. The listed status fields provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema's empty properties object confirms this. Since there are no parameters, the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter discussion, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to view memory system status. It lists specific pieces of information it returns (active count, total records, vector index status), making it distinct from siblings like memory_search, memory_add, etc., which perform operations rather than status checks.

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 context is clear: this is a read-only status tool, and an agent would naturally use it to inspect memory system state. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the verb 'View' and the listed data imply it's for checking status, not for mutation or search. This provides clear context without exclusions.

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