memory_heal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that repairs can delete orphaned/expired records, that state changes are recorded with audit entries, and that the default mode applies repairs while dryRun='true' only reports. It also gives the return shape {success,fixed,skipped,details}. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements, but the destructive profile and default behavior are clear.

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?

Front-loads the core action and category list, then layers dry-run behavior, return shape, and the prerequisite. Dense but every sentence carries information; no wasted filler.

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 destructive repair tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: destructive side effects, audit trail, default vs dry-run behavior, the return shape, and the prerequisite diagnostic step. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely.

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 both parameters (dryRun, categories) are already documented in the schema. The description restates dryRun behavior and loosely references the category set but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (apply repairs) on a specific resource (selected diagnostic categories) and enumerates those categories. It is clearly distinguished from memory_diagnose, which only identifies issues, and from memory_verify, making the sibling boundary obvious.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite workflow ('Run memory_diagnose first'), the condition under which dry run should be used, and a real limitation ('not every diagnostic has an automatic repair'). It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

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