memory_correct

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

All annotations are false-valued (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'Replaces the stored content' and — crucially — that it 'refreshes the git context (current commit SHA) so future freshness checks compare against the new baseline', a side effect not visible in the schema. It stops just short of explaining failure modes or preconditions like git connectivity.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence one states trigger and action, sentence two discloses side effects, sentence three routes to the sibling alternative. The scoping condition is front-loaded ahead of the side-effect detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 write tool with 2 required params and no output schema, the description covers the trigger context, the mutation, the git-baseline side effect, and the sibling distinction. Minor gaps exist — failure behavior, return value, and preconditions (e.g., whether the git repo must be connected) are unstated — but 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 description coverage is 100%, so id, content, and related_paths are already fully documented structurally. The description adds workflow context (what 'corrected content' means in this freshness-check flow, why related_paths matters for the git baseline) but no new formats, constraints, or syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update'), resource ('a memory'), and precise scope ('flagged by memory_check_freshness'), which immediately distinguishes it from the broader memory_update sibling named in the last sentence. The annotation title 'Correct Memory' reinforces the same purpose. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for without opening any other definition.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('after its related code changed', 'flagged by memory_check_freshness') and an explicit when-not-to-use rule with the named alternative: 'For a general edit to any memory that is NOT part of a freshness check, use memory_update instead.' This is ideal routing guidance — nothing left to inference.

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