memory_rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation of an existing stored attempt but does not disclose side effects, whether the previous grade is overwritten, permission requirements, or what happens if the id does not exist. Only the triggering context is described.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is concise and immediately communicates the action and a common trigger. The brevity becomes a liability only in completeness, not in structure.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The description supplies only the basic action and one example trigger, leaving an agent without enough information about the required id, the meaning of quality, or the effects of re-grading. For a mutation tool with no structured behavioral metadata, this is insufficient.

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 three undocumented parameters. It hints at the id ('stored attempt'), quality ('re-grade'), and source enum ('second source' or 'human'), but it does not specify the id format or the quality scale and valid range. This is partial compensation rather than full coverage.

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 and resource: 'Re-grade a stored attempt.' This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_record and memory_recall, which store and retrieve memories rather than update an existing attempt's grade. The phrase 'stored attempt' is slightly vague, but the core action is clear.

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 a concrete usage example: after a second source or a human confirmed the attempt. However, it does not state when not to use the tool, nor does it point to alternatives such as memory_record for new entries. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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