memory_episode_consolidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool can either preview or apply consolidation and describes the operation as 'conservative,' which is useful. However, it does not say what changes are made, whether the original episode is modified or retained, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects applying consolidation may have.

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 one short sentence with no filler. 'Preview or apply' is front-loaded and immediately communicates the two modes, and the phrase 'conservative Episode consolidation into long-term personal memories' efficiently conveys scope. Every word earns its place.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, this description is too thin. It leaves dry_run semantics implicit, ignores limit and subject, and provides no guidance about the output or the consolidation process. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description alone is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly across its modes.

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%, and the description does not name or explain any of the four parameters. 'Preview or apply' loosely maps to dry_run, and 'Episode' hints at episode_id, but limit and subject are completely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 a specific action ('Preview or apply') and a specific resource ('conservative Episode consolidation into long-term personal memories'), so an agent can tell this is about consolidating episodic memories rather than adding, searching, or reviewing them. It is not a tautology and it adds some scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools like memory_personal_derive or memory_review_apply.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many memory-related siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where consolidation should be avoided. The only implicit context is that both preview and apply modes are available, so an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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