bump

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

No annotations are present, placing full burden on the description. It only states the action (reinforce) without disclosing side effects, reversibility, or what 'weight' means in the memory system. Lacks critical behavioral context.

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 extremely short (a phrase), which is concise but borderline too terse. It lacks a full sentence structure and could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description does not fully explain the effect on the memory system, prerequisites, or expected outcomes. It is adequate only for the most basic understanding.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (id and amount). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states the action: reinforce a memory's weight for recall reinforcement. It provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like decay (opposite) and update. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from similar operations.

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 such as decay, update, or recall. No prerequisites or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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