memory_reinforce

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the action types (reinforce/deny) but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or permissions. The description is functional but not highly transparent about internal behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediate usage instructions. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or verbose content.

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?

Lacks output schema, but description does not explain return values or effects. It covers parameter usage adequately but omits context like required permissions, side effects, or what happens after reinforcement. For a tool with 3 params and an enum, it is moderately complete.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The description adds contextual guidance for reinforcement_type (confirmed vs denied), which goes beyond the enum labels. However, it does not elaborate on pattern_id or context parameters beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reinforces or denies a stored memory pattern, using specific verbs (reinforce, deny) and resource (memory pattern). It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_recall or memory_extract by focusing on modifying confidence/status.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for the reinforcement_type parameter: 'Use confirmed when the user validates a memory, denied when they contradict it.' This helps the agent choose appropriate values, though it doesn't discuss when to use this tool over siblings or prerequisites.

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