promote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the action is deliberate and auditable and that the reason becomes part of the audit log. It does not state whether the original working memory is deleted, whether the operation is reversible, or whether any permissions are required.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 simple tool this is close to sufficient: the operation, required arguments, and audit consequence are covered. It is incomplete because the side effect on the working-memory record and the result of promotion are not described, and no annotations or output schema fill that gap.

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 the description must compensate. It adds meaning to `reason` by saying it becomes part of the audit log, but `memory_id` is only explained by its name and the description gives no format or provenance guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Consolidate a working memory into long-term memory.' This states exactly what the tool does and distinguishes it from related memory operations like remember, forget, and restore, even without naming them.

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 implies when to use it (a deliberate consolidation decision) and explicitly excludes using it as an automatic 'similarity/importance score threshold.' However, it never names alternatives or says when to prefer due_for_consolidation, remember, or forget, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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