memory_review_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add one important guarantee: it never physically deletes memory. However, it does not describe the side effects of the individual actions (e.g., whether confirm/wrong/stale update status or persist), reversibility, or any requirements beyond id/action.

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 two tight sentences, with the action list front-loaded and the safety guarantee following. Every sentence carries distinct information 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?

The description covers the core operation and a key safety property, and an output schema exists so return values are not a gap. However, the weak input schema and absent annotations leave scope/reason semantics and alternative-tool routing underexplained, so an agent may still need to infer important details.

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 compensate for the input schema's missing parameter documentation. It adds meaning for action by listing its allowed values, but scope and reason are left undefined, and the relationship between the 'scoped' action and the scope parameter is only implicit.

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 ('Apply') and resource ('memory review action'), then enumerates the exact accepted actions, making the tool's function unambiguous. This differentiates it from review-related siblings such as memory_review_inbox and memory_review_digest, which list/digest rather than 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 action list and 'review action' phrasing imply this is for acting on memory-review decisions, but the description never explicitly says when to use it instead of related tools like memory_correct or memory_remove. The 'never physically deletes memory' sentence provides a useful exclusion, though no alternative tool is named.

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