Resolve Memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains key behavioral traits: that resolved memories are hidden from default search, can still be found with status='all', and the purpose is to prevent pollution of future context. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core action and effect, the second provides usage examples and rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about the operation's purpose and effects. It explains the behavioral consequences (hidden from default search, findable with status='all') and practical use cases. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns or potential error conditions.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds some value by explaining the purpose of marking observations as resolved and the effect on search, but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents (like explaining the difference between 'resolved' and 'archived' statuses).

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 with specific verb ('mark as resolved') and resource ('observations'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining what resolved memories are (hidden from default search but findable with status='all'). It provides concrete examples of use cases (completed tasks, fixed bugs, outdated information).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to mark completed tasks, fixed bugs, or outdated information) and explains the effect (so they don't pollute future context). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the many siblings, though it implies search tools might be alternatives for finding resolved items.

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