hebbrix_mark_used

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the core behavioral effect: helpful=True strengthens the memory, helpful=False weakens it, and over time this affects ranking ('makes the memories you rely on rank higher and unused ones fade'). This clearly explains the mutation and its consequence.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. The first sentence packs the core function and usage, the second adds long-term context, and the third explains a parameter. No excessive or redundant 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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential dimensions: what it does, when to call, how parameters affect behavior, and the long-term effect. No major gaps are apparent for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must add meaning. It explains the `helpful` parameter's boolean effect (strengthens/weakens) and clarifies `query` as 'the question it helped answer, if handy'. `memory_id` is not explicitly described, but its role is self-evident from the tool name and schema requirement.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reinforce') and clearly identifies the resource ('a memory you actually USED to answer'). It explicitly frames the tool as a feedback mechanism for Hebbian recall, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hebbrix_search, hebbrix_remember, and hebbrix_forget.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call this when a retrieved memory was helpful... or was noise'. It clearly indicates the tool is for post-retrieval reinforcement, but does not mention alternative tools for other operations or provide explicit when-not-to-use exclusions.

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