promote_memory

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

The description discloses a side effect ('creates a new durable entry linked to the source evidence') and mentions 'authority upgrade', which adds value beyond the input schema. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on failure modes, idempotency, or whether the source evidence is altered. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: first states purpose and side effect, second gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and no redundant information is present. It is efficiently 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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core function and when to use. It could be more complete by describing return values or the effect on the evidence memory, but the schema and usage guidance cover the essentials. It's almost complete for this tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'memoryId' is an evidence memory ID, as in schema). Baseline of 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 action ('Promote an evidence memory into durable memory') and the resource ('evidence memory'), specifying an 'authority upgrade'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like store_memory by focusing on promotion rather than initial storage.

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 a clear use case: 'Use when a transcript snippet or imported artifact contains a fact worth keeping across windows.' While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context implies when not to use (e.g., if the fact is ephemeral). The guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.

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