credit

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: counts only grow, raw text never edited, effect on recall ranking via Beta posterior. However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and flows naturally. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value. The use of examples aids understanding.

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 the absence of output schema and parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers essential behavior, including return value ('Returns what updated'). The role of 'weight' remains incomplete, but overall, the tool is well-described.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to 'ids' and 'outcome' parameters, explaining the latter's acceptable values and shorthand. However, the optional 'weight' parameter is mentioned but not explained, leaving its semantics unclear.

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 purpose: 'Close the accuracy loop' by updating memory track records based on real verdicts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'recall' and 'remember' by focusing on accuracy feedback.

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 provides explicit scenarios for use (e.g., forecast resolves, claim ruled) and acceptable outcome values. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives.

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