memory_enable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently describes the reactor registration, journal-file side effect, ability to capture GUI/user edits, and persistence across sessions. This exceeds the typical 'enable' description by revealing the full operational impact.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main action, followed by the mechanism, persistence, and next-step guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without filler or repetition, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 state-enabling tool with no annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, mechanism, persistent side effects, call frequency, and integration with downstream tools. An output schema exists, so omitting return-value details is acceptable. The only minor gap is not naming memory_disable explicitly, but the sibling list covers that.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no param detail because none exists.

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 opens with a clear action verb and resource: 'Turn ON the drawing's autonomous memory journal.' It then explains the mechanism (registers a database reactor that appends entity events to a journal file), distinguishing it from drawing-creation and editing siblings. It also points to related tools like memory_disable, tag_entity, and world_report.

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 description gives clear usage context: 'call it once per CAD start' and explains the intended workflow ('Then use tag_entity ... and world_report'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, such as memory_disable, even though that sibling exists. The guidance is strong on context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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