reinforce_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behaviors: raising salience by a boost amount and marking as seen now. However, it doesn't clarify the scale of salience (is it 0-1? unbounded?), whether operations are idempotent, what happens if memory doesn't exist, or permission requirements. There's an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere, but mutation semantics remain thin.

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?

Single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key parameter constraint inline. No wasted words; every part carries meaning.

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 simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers the core operation and the non-obvious boost constraint. It lacks usage context and the memory_id meaning, but for a simple reinforcement tool, it's largely complete. The main gap is not addressing what happens if the memory doesn't exist.

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 the description must compensate. It defines 'boost' as (0..1, default 0.1), which adds crucial constraint information not in the schema (schema just says number). However, 'memory_id' is completely undocumented in both places. Partial compensation for the coverage gap, but the required parameter is left unexplained.

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 (raise) and resource (memory's salience/importance), with detail on the effect and timestamp marking. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_memory or searched_memories by its reinforcement semantics, though it doesn't name any alternatives explicitly.

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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for reinforcing existing memories, but there's no guidance on context, prerequisites (e.g., memory must exist), or when not to use it. No alternative tools mentioned.

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