memory_reinforce

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful effect ('resist forgetting') but does not address whether repeated calls compound strength (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or how invalid ids are handled.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and its rationale. 'Read first, then reinforce' mildly restates the earlier 'after reading it via memory_get' clause, a small redundancy.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description supplies the intent, the trigger, and the ordering. The remaining gap is idempotency/compounding behavior, which is a minor omission given the output schema carries the response.

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% and the single parameter is fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a light link between the id and the memory_get workflow, without new format or constraint details.

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 ('Strengthen') and resource ('one memory'), and clarifies the effect ('helps it resist forgetting'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like memory_forget, memory_supersede, and memory_reinstate, which imply opposite or different semantics.

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 trigger — only after reading via memory_get and finding it 'genuinely useful' — and states the ordering constraint ('Read first, then reinforce'). It does not, however, name specific alternative siblings or state when reinforcement should be skipped in favor of them.

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