memvid_unlock

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

Annotations provide basic hints (non-readonly, non-destructive, etc.), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'non-interactive use' for the password parameter, which is useful implementation detail. However, it doesn't describe what happens during decryption (e.g., file overwriting, error conditions, or performance characteristics) beyond what annotations already cover.

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, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward decryption operation and gets directly to the point.

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 decryption tool with good schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the decrypted file contains or any post-decryption state changes. The description could better address the tool's role within the broader memory management context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 the action ('decrypt') and the resource ('encrypted memory file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'memvid_lock' (the encryption counterpart), which would be helpful for sibling tool selection.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including 'memvid_lock' for encryption), there's no indication of prerequisites, typical workflows, or when this decryption operation is appropriate versus other memory manipulation tools.

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