verify_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses concrete effects: verified memories 'rank higher and decay slower.' This is useful behavioral context beyond the basic action, but it does not mention other side effects (e.g., timestamp updates, permission requirements) or clarify the scope of 'decay slower.' For a simple action, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the action and immediately explains the meaning of 'verified' plus the behavioral consequence. There is zero waste; every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantic: what the action does and its effect. It does not mention possible failure conditions or tie-ins to other tools, but for a simple marking operation, this is reasonably complete. The output schema handles return-value specifics, so its absence is not a gap.

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 for missing parameter documentation. The only parameter, entry_id, is untouched by the description—there is no indication of its format, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('mark') and a specific resource ('a memory'), with a clear clarification of what 'verified' means ('you checked it is still true'). It also distinguishes the tool from related sibling operations like flag_stale or mark_superseded by describing the behavioral outcome (higher ranking, slower decay). This is sufficient for an agent to identify its purpose uniquely.

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 does not provide explicit usage guidance relative to alternatives. It only implies the action taken after verifying a memory's truth, but does not state when to use this instead of flag_stale, mark_superseded, or other memory-management tools. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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