memory_sentinel_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses persisted status/time, audit recording, gate-driven unblocking of linked blocked actions, the explicit non-recheck of dependencies, the return shape, and the missing/non-watching error case. It omits permission requirements and re-trigger/idempotency behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 core action and payload come first, followed by side effects, return shape, error behavior, and alternatives. Every clause carries information; slightly long enumeration keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape {success,sentinel,unblockedCount} and the error condition, plus the side effects and the important dependency non-recheck caveat. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 (sentinelId, result) are already documented. The description restates the JSON payload and ID semantics without adding format, validation, or example details beyond the schema — the 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+resource ('Fire an existing watching sentinel by ID') with the key qualifier 'watching', which separates it from the create/checkpoint siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 two alternatives and their respective roles: memory_sentinel_create to register a condition, memory_checkpoint to resolve an external check. This gives clear routing context, though it never states an explicit exclusion or precondition for choosing this tool over others.

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