Confirm a stored memory as useful to raise its confidence, reset its decay, and activate it if provisional.
A memory was confirmed or proved useful: raises its confidence, resets its decay and activates it if provisional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description goes beyond them by disclosing the actual state changes — confidence increase, decay reset, provisional activation. It does not explain whether repeated calls stack confidence or what happens to an already-active memory, which would be the remaining behavioral gap.
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 sentence that leads with the trigger condition and then the effects. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, nothing to cut.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the observable effects well; only the unidentified id parameter and idempotency/stacking behavior leave a small gap.
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?
There is a single required parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — not what a memory id looks like, nor where to obtain one. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, so this sits below the 3 baseline.
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 names the operation (reinforce a memory) and spells out three concrete effects: raises confidence, resets decay, activates if provisional. It is clearly distinct from memory_recall/remember/forget in substance, but it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling tool.
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?
The opening clause 'A memory was confirmed or proved useful' implicitly states the triggering condition, which is real usage context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and never routes the agent to or away from alternatives such as memory_remember or memory_recall.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.