memory_reinforce

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description only needed to add context. It does add meaningful behavior: the required read-before-write ordering and the intended effect of reducing forgetting. It stops short of explaining whether repeated calls stack or are capped, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the action in the opening clause and follows with the condition and the ordering rule. Two sentences with no redundant padding, though the em-dash aside is slightly more ornate than necessary.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a single-parameter mutation-with-effect tool, the description supplies the trigger, the ordering constraint, and the purpose, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call 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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('The id of the memory to strengthen'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description implies the target must be a single memory previously fetched via memory_get, which is mild added context but does not exceed the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Strengthen one memory' and explicitly frames the effect as helping a memory 'resist forgetting'. It clearly differentiates itself from memory_get by naming it as the prerequisite read step. It does not, however, contrast itself with adjacent siblings like memory_reinstate or memory_supersede.

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 a clear situational trigger ('after reading it via memory_get and finding it genuinely useful') and an explicit procedural rule ('Read first, then reinforce'). It lacks any when-not guidance or a pointer to an alternative tool for cases where the memory was not useful.

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