memory_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses atomicity, return of diffs and evidence links, soft deletion for REMOVE, version checking for UPDATE/SUPERSEDE/REMOVE, and idempotency support. It does not contradict any hypothetical annotations, and the behavioral traits are clearly outlined.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses a structured paragraph split by operation types, making it scannable. A minor improvement would be to list operations in bullet points, but current structure is effective without wasted words.

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 the tool complexity (multiple operation types, versioning, idempotency) and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers essential use cases and constraints. It could mention operation limits or error handling for version mismatches, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema by explaining the semantics of each operation and their required parameters (e.g., 'ADD uses subject/content,' 'UPDATE uses memory_id/expected_version/new_content'). This helps an agent properly select and populate parameters.

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 'Apply semantic operations atomically and return server-generated diffs and evidence links,' clearly identifying the tool as a write-oriented operation for memory modifications. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_read (read-only) and memory_search (query) by specifying atomic application of semantic operations with diffs and evidence links.

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 explains when to use each operation type (ADD, UPDATE, SUPERSEDE, REMOVE) and notes that default policy requires evidence IDs. It explicitly forbids raw SQL and administrative rollback, guiding the agent away from misuse. However, it could more directly state that this tool is for writing modifications, not reading.

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