memory_advanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool delegates to memory_maintenance, that destructive ops require confirm=True, and mentions the confirmation gate. This is sufficient for transparency, though a bit more detail on what happens during delegation could help.

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 concise with clear sections (args, security) and is front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' block could be slightly more compact.

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's generic nature and the existence of an output schema (not shown but signaled), the description provides essential information: the purpose, usage guidance, security warnings, and parameter explanations. It is complete enough for an escape hatch tool.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'operation' as any operation name, 'kwargs' as operation-specific parameters, and 'tenant_id' as tenant identity. However, 'kwargs' is a string but not clarified whether it expects JSON or other format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 labels it as an 'escape hatch' for memory_maintenance operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools by stating 'use when a verb doesn't cover your use case.' This provides specific verb+resource context.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (when a specific verb is unavailable) and provides security guidelines about confirm=True for destructive operations. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but the context implies using specific verbs when possible.

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