layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the layer semantics and injection order (Core → Hot → Warm → Cold → Frozen), but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects, or how an invalid target is handled. The enum ordering is real added value, but the mutation profile remains thin.

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 tight clauses with the action front-loaded and no wasted framing. Minor redundancy in re-listing the layer values already enumerated in the schema, but the piece is well-sized for its 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?

No output schema and no annotations means the description must stand alone, and it does convey the core purpose and layer semantics. It leaves the undocumented 'initiative' parameter and all side-effect/error behavior unexplained, so it is adequate but not complete for a 3-param mutation tool.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description restates the name/layer meanings already present in the schema plus the priority ordering. The third parameter, 'initiative', is undocumented in both schema and description, so the gap is not compensated. Marginal added meaning over the schema justifies the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Set a node's memory layer') and even clarifies the downstream effect ('controls recall priority'). That is enough to tell what it does and how it differs functionally from siblings like set_status or reweight. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so 4 rather than 5.

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 implies usage (change a node's layer to adjust recall priority/injection order), which gives context for when to reach for it. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never names alternatives such as set_status or reweight that also mutate memory state, leaving the routing choice to inference.

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