memory_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions actions (verify, supersede, contradict) which imply behavioral traits like mutation and validation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if supersede deletes old data), rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic actions.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, using a single sentence efficiently. However, the phrase 'Actions: verify, supersede (old:new), contradict (a:b)' is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer, slightly reducing effectiveness. Overall, it's concise with minimal waste.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and actions, but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context, and how it integrates with siblings. The output schema may handle return values, but the description doesn't address prerequisites or error cases adequately.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds some semantics by explaining actions (verify, supersede, contradict) which relate to the 'action' parameter, but doesn't clarify 'memory_id' (e.g., what it references) or provide syntax examples (e.g., format for 'old:new'). It partially compensates but leaves key aspects undocumented.

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 states the tool's purpose is to 'verify, supersede, or contradict a memory,' which is clear but vague about what a 'memory' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_save and memory_search by focusing on verification/modification rather than creation or retrieval, but doesn't specify the resource (e.g., what type of memory or data structure) beyond the generic term.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_save or memory_search. The description lists actions (verify, supersede, contradict) but doesn't explain scenarios for each or prerequisites. It's implied to modify existing memories, but without context on when to choose which action or how it differs from entity_update.

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