promote_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('promote') and the trust level progression, but it lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., on related memories), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 very concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and usage context without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 complexity of a mutation tool (promoting trust levels) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool correctly in various scenarios.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema as 'Memory ID to promote'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('promote') and resource ('memory's trust level'), and it explains the progression of states (hypothesis → active → validated). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from similar sibling tools like 'update_memory' or 'supersede_memory', which might also modify memory states.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('when evidence confirms a memory is true'), which helps guide its application. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to choose 'deprecate_memory' or 'update_memory' instead.

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