correct_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important non-destructive trait: the old memory is superseded rather than deleted, and a new episode is appended. It omits what 'supersede' means operationally (is it reversible? does the old memory still appear in search?), required permissions, and behavior when memory_id is unknown or already superseded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core mechanic is stated first. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions unaddressed.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It explains the supersede mechanic but not the parameters, safety profile, or result of the call, which is insufficient for a 4-parameter write operation.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only vaguely implies that a target memory and correction text are supplied; it never explains 'reason' (why required?) or 'source', nor the expected format of memory_id or correction.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add a correction... supersede the old Markdown memory') and reveals the mechanism, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this from the sibling edit_memory, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: by describing the operation as adding a historical episode and superseding the old record, it hints that this is the history-preserving alternative to editing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to edit_memory or verify_memory by name.

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