Confirm memory

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

The annotation only includes idempotentHint, but the description discloses additional behavioral details such as entering recall and refreshing the persona for correction/preference types, offering transparency beyond the minimal annotation.

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 concise, with two sentences: the first states the primary action and side effects, the second gives the usage condition. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, and relevant side effects. No output schema is needed, and the description is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 provides full coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a clear description ('Memory ID (from memory_pending)'). The tool description does not add extra meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: confirming a pending memory. It also specifies additional effects (enters recall, refreshes persona for certain types), distinguishing it from related tools like memory_reject and memory_pending.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call when the user approves an item listed by memory_pending.' This provides clear guidance and indirectly distinguishes it from memory_reject.

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