memory_reinforce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It discloses the reinforcing nature and effect ('helps it resist forgetting') but does not mention whether this is a write operation, whether it is reversible, or any failure modes. The behavioral detail provided is useful but incomplete.

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 primary action, and every clause adds value. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given the simple one-parameter interface and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and the reinforcing effect. It does not explain return values or error cases, but the output schema likely covers the former, and the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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 description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter, entry_id, with a clear title. The description implies that entry_id identifies the memory to reinforce by referring to 'one memory' and 'it', but it doesn't explicitly state that entry_id must come from memory_get. The schema type and title carry most of the meaning, but the description adds modest context.

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 a specific action ('Strengthen one memory') and the resource, with an explicit precondition ('after reading it via memory_get'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like memory_forget or memory_consolidate by framing it as a deliberate 'this mattered' signal to resist forgetting.

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 gives explicit context for when to use: after reading a memory via memory_get and finding it genuinely useful. The instruction 'Read first, then reinforce' provides a clear precondition, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use beyond implying if not useful.

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