corroborate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently details side effects: automatic upgrade of 'archive' to 'testimony', the need for two sources when origin is unknown/blank, trimming and case-sensitivity of source labels, source identity rules, and auditing of duplicates. This goes beyond a simple action description and covers non-obvious behaviors.

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 a compact paragraph with no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose, upgrade rule, special case for unknown origins, source handling, auditing, and the exclusion for interpretation-tier. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary conditions. No word is wasted.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, trigger conditions, edge cases (unknown origins), source identity nuances, and when to use an alternative tool. An agent would have all the information needed to decide when and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It does: for `source`, it explains the semantics ('Source labels are trimmed, case-sensitive identifiers... repeated turns from one speaker or copies of a document are one source'), which is critical for correct invocation. The `memory_id` is implicitly a memory identifier, which is self-explanatory from the context. The description effectively compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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's purpose: 'Record that an independent additional source corroborates this memory.' It specifies the action (record corroboration) and the resource (a memory), and distinguishes itself by explaining the upgrade effect on 'archive' memories and explicitly excluding 'interpretation'-tier memories, which directs the agent to a sibling tool. This differentiates it from other memory-related tools.

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 explicit usage context: it explains when an upgrade happens (after a distinct source corroborates the origin), and clearly states when NOT to use it ('Has no upgrade effect on interpretation-tier memories — use review() for those instead'). It also specifies source counting rules (distinct sources, repeated turns counted as one), giving the agent clear conditions for invocation.

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