memory_consolidate

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no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that matching entries are 'marked superseded', new_text is 'stored fresh', the bank shortens, and the audit trail is preserved. It also lists the return fields. Minor gap: behavior when no matches occur is not clarified.

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 tight and front-loaded: two sentences cover the core action, the matching behavior, the side effect, and the return structure. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

The description effectively covers purpose, behavior, and return values, which is good for a tool with no annotations. It omits clarification of optional params and explicit sibling differentiation, but the overall flow is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

The description adds meaning to the required parameters: 'replaces' is explained as exact text or close paraphrase matching, and 'new_text' as what is stored fresh. Optional parameters 'tags' and 'source' are left entirely unexplained, which is significant given 0% schema description coverage.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Replace a cluster of near-duplicate memories with one canonical note.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_supersede by emphasizing the cluster and the goal of making the bank shorter.

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?

It provides a clear context for use: when there are near-duplicate memories that should be merged into one canonical note. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as memory_supersede, which would strengthen the guidance.

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