elite_memory

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

Annotations already convey mutation and destructiveness (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds only 'scoped' and 'explicitly approve'. It does not disclose that 'forget' is a destructive action, how 'confirm' guards it, or what side effects 'record'/'approve' have. No contradiction with annotations, but little behavioral context is added beyond them.

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 short and front-loaded, with no fluff. However, the single sentence is too underspecified for a tool with 9 parameters and at least 5 distinct actions, so it scores slightly below an effective structural outcome.

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 destructive, writable, multi-action tool with 9 undocumented parameters, the description only gives a title-level action overview. It does not explain action-specific requirements, safeguards like confirm, or what each memory item operation needs, so the definition is not sufficient for reliable invocation by an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity, but it only hints at 'scope' and references action names. The meaning of content, memory_id, memory_type, trust_score, privacy_class, and confirm remains opaque, leaving an agent unable to assemble correct calls.

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 names a specific resource ('memory items') and multiple concrete verbs ('Search, record, approve') that match the tool's core actions. It does not explicitly distinguish elite_memory from sibling tools, and omits the forget and associative actions available in the enum, so it is clear but not fully complete.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus elite_prepare or elite_verify, nor about which action values should be chosen in common scenarios. The description implies it handles memory operations but gives the agent no decision criteria for selecting it.

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