memory_consolidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the operation mutates stored memory, writes an audit entry, emits skipped reasons or errors, and can report success:true while individual tiers fail. It also flags the OBSIDIAN_AUTO_EXPORT side effect and that a disabled config or thrown pipeline failure surfaces as 'unavailable'. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the action and mutation scope lead, followed by selection, return shape, thresholds, failure modes, and alternatives. Every sentence carries operational content, though the volume of caveats makes it heavier than ideal for quick 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns — and it does, giving the exact shape ({success:true,results} with per-tier counts), the partial-failure caveat, and the disabled-config response. For a one-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are already listed there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: it clarifies the default (all when omitted), that episodic is not implemented, and what downstream state each tier touches, which the schema does not convey.

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 (runs the LLM-backed consolidation pipeline over stored semantic/procedural memory, reflection insights and decay strengths) and explicitly scopes what it does not cover (no project filter, episodic not implemented). An agent can distinguish this from memory_reflect, memory_crystallize and the graph tools without opening any schema.

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?

Names concrete alternatives ('use memory_save, memory_lesson_save or memory_graph_upsert for curated writes') and gives the when-not conditions (disabled by default in zero-LLM/noop and managed local-qwen modes; explicit thresholds of 5 summaries / 2 recurring patterns). Both the appropriate and inappropriate use paths are spelled out.

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