memory_feedback

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: negative feedback flags evidence for review and never silently deletes it. Since no annotations are provided, this adds important context about side effects and safety, though it does not mention what happens with positive feedback or other signals.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently captures the tool's purpose and a critical behavioral constraint.

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 simple feedback-recording tool, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral consequence (no silent deletion). No output schema exists, but the tool's return value is not essential for the agent to select and invoke it correctly. Still, a mention of what happens after recording (e.g., confirmation) would make it more 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does enumerate the signal enum values, but it fails to explain the meaning of memory_id, note, and outcome. These parameters remain ambiguous, leaving gaps beyond what the schema provides.

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The description uses the specific verb 'Record whether' and clearly lists the signal values (helpful, incorrect, outdated, duplicate, ignored), making it distinct from sibling tools like recall and remember. The resource (recalled memory) is explicit, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 after memory recall ('Record whether a recalled memory...') but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like backtest_check or list_conflicts. No exclusions are provided, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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