memory_reinforce

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

The description adds specificity beyond the annotations by stating that edge weights are mutated. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description clarifies the exact object of mutation, providing context not solely inferred from structured fields.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences: the action, the effect, and the usage condition. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

With only one parameter, a clear safety profile from annotations, and an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage without redundancy.

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?

The schema description for the single parameter `ids` is fully detailed (co-retrieved UUIDs, pair increments, idempotence), so the description adds no new parameter information. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Boost Hebbian edges') targeting a specific resource ('record ids'), and explicitly notes that it mutates edge weights. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_recall or memory_consolidate.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use when two records co-answered.' It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the clear context is sufficient for most selection scenarios.

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