memory.set_weight

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that setting weight triggers a recalculation of effective weight, which is a behavioral side effect. However, it does not mention permission requirements, reversibility, or potential impacts on other memories.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load key information like parameter details or usage scope.

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 three required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects beyond recalculation, or parameter constraints, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so parameters have no descriptions. The description mentions 'peso manual' corresponding to weight_manual, but does not explain memory_id or rationale. Thus, it adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 specifies the action (set manual weight) and resource (memory), and adds the recalculation behavior. It differentiates from sibling tools like memory.change.get or memory.upsert, which deal with other aspects. However, it is in Portuguese, which may reduce clarity for English-speaking agents.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory.change.propose). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided. Usage is only implicitly derived from the tool name.

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