RecallNest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels by disclosing specific side effects: 'boosts importance to 0.95, writes pin asset file, and indexes it.' It quantifies the mutation and explains the persistent indexing behavior, giving agents precise expectations about state changes.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 defines purpose, sentence 2 lists side effects, sentence 3 gives usage guidance. Front-loaded with the core action, no filler words, appropriately dense for the complexity.

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 8 parameters and file I/O mutation with no annotations/output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavioral contract (importance boost, file write, indexing). Minor gap: doesn't address idempotency (re-pinning?), error states, or whether the operation is reversible, which annotations would typically cover.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the 'retrieved memory' semantic for memory_id and connects to 'search result' usage, but doesn't add syntax details, validation rules, or parameter interaction logic beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Pin') and clear resource ('retrieved memory'), defining the transformation to 'high-importance reusable asset on disk.' It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like store_memory (creates new) vs pin_memory (promotes existing) and search_memory (read-only).

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 'Use when a search result is critical and should be surfaced in future recalls,' providing clear contextual triggers. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., 'use store_memory for new memories, pin_memory for existing ones') or mention prerequisites like requiring a valid memory_id from search.

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