memory_touch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the surface action. It doesn't disclose what 'accessed' changes (timestamp? ranking?), whether the operation is idempotent, whether it affects recall ordering, or what happens when both filters are empty — whether an empty query matches everything, which could be a broad side effect.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loads the verb, which is structurally efficient. However, it errs on the side of under-specification rather than deliberate pruning — key behavioral and parameter details are absent.

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?

Although the output schema covers return values, this is a state-mutating tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation. The matching semantics, default behavior with empty filters, and side effects on memory state are all under-specified, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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, but it only clarifies that 'ids' is an optional filter. The 'query' parameter is undefined in both schema and description — what it matches against, its format, and the interaction when both params are empty defaults are left unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('memories') and conveys a distinct operation: updating access state. The 'touch' semantics differentiate it from memory_update (content edits), memory_search, and memory_remove, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_recall, memory_probe, or memory_update. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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