memory_request_access

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: the user is prompted through the client, memory remains off by default, the agent cannot enable it directly, and a fallback returns instructions if the client cannot show the prompt. These details materially help the agent understand the consent flow and limits.

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 action and then adds the key default-state and fallback behavior in two compact sentences. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 empty input schema, existing annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, that memory is opt-in, that the agent cannot self-enable it, and what happens when the prompt is unavailable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden and the schema is effectively complete. The description does not need to explain inputs, and the baseline for zero-param tools is a 4.

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 states a specific action and resource: ask the user whether site memory may be enabled and what it may store. It also clearly differentiates this consent-request tool from memory read/status operations by saying the agent cannot enable memory itself.

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?

It gives clear context that memory is off by default and nothing is remembered until the user agrees, which strongly implies when this tool is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as memory_status or memory_recall, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing guidance.

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