Central Intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden effectively. It discloses the write operation nature, irreversibility ('one-directional'), cost ('Costs 1 operation'), idempotency ('Does not duplicate'), and data sourcing prerequisites ('from recall or remember').

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?

Six information-dense sentences with zero redundancy. Key constraints (one-directional, non-duplication, cost) are front-loaded immediately after the primary use case, enabling rapid comprehension of the tool's contract.

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?

Comprehensive for a state-modification tool without output schema. Covers operation semantics, scope constraints, cost model, and sourcing prerequisites. No significant gaps remain given the straightforward 3-parameter structure and 100% schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for memory_id, target_scope, and user_id including conditional requirements. The description references these parameters but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 specific verbs ('Widen', 'changes') and identifies the exact resource (memory's visibility scope) and transformation (agent-only to user-level/org-level). It clearly differentiates from siblings like 'recall' (retrieval) and 'remember' (creation) by focusing exclusively on scope 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('knowledge valuable beyond the current agent') with concrete examples (user preferences, team conventions) and when not to use ('Do not use to restrict scope'). It clarifies the one-directional nature of the operation, preventing misuse for scope restriction.

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