memory_personal_derive

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 states the action but does not disclose whether this creates, updates, or overwrites a memory, what 'linking back' entails, whether the episode must already exist, or any side effects or permission requirements.

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 single, tightly written sentence with no filler. It places the core action and primary object up front, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable despite the lack of supporting detail.

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 10 parameters, 5 required, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse for an agent to reliably invoke the tool. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral side effects, leaving the agent to guess at critical inputs and behavior.

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 explain any of the 10 parameters. Required fields like episode_id, memory_type, subject, key, and value are left entirely to the agent to infer from their names, without any additional context about their meaning or relationship to the derivation process.

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 verb ('Derive'), a clear resource ('a long-term personal memory'), and the source ('an existing Episode'), plus the linking behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_personal_add because it targets derivation from an episode rather than direct memory creation.

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 phrase 'from an existing Episode' implies the tool should be used when an episode already exists and needs to be converted into a long-term personal memory. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as memory_personal_add or memory_add.

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