RecallNest

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully discloses the critical side effect ('creates a new durable entry linked to the source evidence') and mentions 'authority upgrade' to indicate data durability changes. Does not clarify whether the source evidence is retained or deleted, nor mention idempotency or error conditions.

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 efficient clauses: action definition, side effect disclosure, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. The front-loaded structure places the core verb ('Promote') immediately, followed by specific qualifiers.

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 complex tier-migration operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the conceptual model (evidence vs. durable memory) and linkage behavior. Could be improved by clarifying the fate of the source evidence memory post-promotion and mentioning the required scope parameter's role in targeting.

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%, with all 8 parameters fully documented (descriptions, enums, defaults). The description provides conceptual context but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is appropriate given the 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 tool 'Promote[s] an evidence memory into durable memory with an authority upgrade,' specifying the exact transformation (evidence→durable) and distinguishing it from sibling creation tools like store_memory by emphasizing the 'promotion' and 'upgrade' aspects.

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?

Provides explicit usage context ('Use when a transcript snippet or imported artifact contains a fact worth keeping across windows'), identifying the specific scenario for promotion. Lacks explicit contrast with alternatives like store_memory or brief_memory, though the 'promotion' metaphor implies working with existing evidence rather than new data.

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