promote_memory

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors like namespace creation and source removal, but lacks details on idempotency, overwriting, permissions, or error handling. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a clear parameter list. No wasted words, though the list could be formatted for even quicker scanning.

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?

With 9 parameters and no schema descriptions or annotations, the description covers main purpose and parameter meanings but omits edge cases and return details. Output schema exists but not shown. Fairly complete for the complexity.

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 0%, but the description includes a docstring with parameter names and brief explanations (e.g., 'Comma-separated tags,' 'Removed original after promotion'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though descriptions could be more detailed.

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 clearly states it saves a memory to a shared namespace for cross-session and cross-project access, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_shared_memories and search_memories.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user teaches you something that applies beyond the current project,' providing clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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