memory_remedio

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 says the tool marks an error as resolved and cross-references similar unresolved errors, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, reversibility, storage behavior, or how the cross-referencing affects other records. The critical allow_secret behavior is only described in the schema, not the description.

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 one compact sentence plus an alias tag, with no wasted language. The alias is front-loaded before the action, which is slightly less ideal, but the definition remains easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the effect of cross-referencing similar unresolved errors, return behavior, or secret-handling implications. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral context an agent needs is largely missing.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents error_id, solution, and allow_secret in detail. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Mark an error as resolved with solution.' It also adds the cross-referencing behavior. The alias note '[alias of cuba_remedio]' signals it is a duplicate of the sibling cuba_remedio, which helps selection, though it does not distinguish broader use cases.

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 the tool is used to resolve an error with a solution, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives among the many memory_/cuba_ sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is for marking errors resolved.

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