Consolidate episodic memory

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

Annotations already mark it as mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false), and the description reinforces this with concrete consequences: re-running creates additional summaries and source nodes remain. It also discloses the auth requirement ('tool policy gate'), adding useful operational context beyond the schema and 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 compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by usage context, an explicit non-delete caveat, and behavioral side effects. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the core action, appropriate trigger, re-run side effects, non-destructive nature, and auth gate. There are no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema fully documents from_level with type, title, default and description (100% coverage). The tool description references from_level but adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb, 'Promote', names the resource ('high-importance nodes with importance >= 0.8') and the destination ('new semantic summary nodes'), and specifies the source level. This clearly differentiates it from sibling memory_write, memory_read, and memory_delete tools.

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 concrete trigger: 'Use after a burst of memory_write calls to compress working memory.' It also states an explicit exclusion: 'Do not use as a delete — source nodes remain.' It does not name memory_delete as the alternative, but the when/when-not guidance is otherwise strong.

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