confirm_memoryMark a stale memory as correct after re-checking the code and re-anchor it to the current files, so future recall treats it as valid.
Mark a stale memory as still correct after re-checking the code. Re-anchors it to the current files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and repeat-safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the operation re-validates and re-anchors the memory to current files rather than rewriting its content. It does not mention permissions or return behavior, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the concrete effect. No wasted wording.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect adequately, but it leaves the id parameter unexplained and does not say what the confirmation returns or whether it changes expiry/staleness state. Minimum viable but with a clear gap.
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?
There is one required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never references it. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it provides no information about which memory is identified or what the id refers to.
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 ('Mark a stale memory as still correct') and clarifies the effect ('Re-anchors it to the current files'), which separates it from remember/recall/forget without naming them. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 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 clear trigger condition: use this after re-checking the code for a memory that has gone stale. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. use remember to update instead), so it falls short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.