memory_reinforce

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior and effect (strengthening, resisting forgetting) and the required sequence. However, it does not disclose error behavior, idempotency, or whether repeated reinforcement has cumulative effects, which leaves some uncertainty.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no unnecessary fluff. The closing 'Read first, then reinforce' slightly restates an earlier point, but it emphasizes the important ordering rule and keeps the whole description tight.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description provides the essential purpose, the precondition, and the behavioral effect. It could mention edge cases like invalid entry_id or repeated calls, but nothing critical is missing for an agent deciding whether and how to use it.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter entry_id is already described as 'The id of the memory to strengthen.' The description adds the hint that the id likely comes from memory_get, but this is minor and the schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Strengthen one memory'), the precondition ('after reading it via memory_get'), and the intent ('this mattered' signal that helps resist forgetting). This differentiates it from siblings like memory_get, memory_search, memory_store, and memory_forget.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: after reading the memory via memory_get and finding it genuinely useful. The instruction 'Read first, then reinforce' provides a clear ordering rule. It doesn't spell out exclusions, but the precondition gives strong guidance.

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