velixar_consolidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that originals are preserved as provenance (non-destructive) and includes a preview mode for safe exploration. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but for a consolidation tool, the key behaviors are covered.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy, starts with the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: what it does, when to use it, and key parameter guidance.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no required, no output schema) and many siblings, the description covers the essential usage scenarios. It is missing minor details like return format or explicit assurance of non-destructiveness, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dual usage pattern (memory_ids vs. topic) and the purpose of the preview flag, going beyond the short schema descriptions. The summary parameter is mentioned ('Optional: provide the consolidated summary') but the description does not detail its format or relationship to auto-generation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Merge') and resource ('related episodic memories into a single semantic memory'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like velixar_store (store new) or velixar_update (modify). It explicitly states what the tool does and what is preserved.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when multiple episodic memories cover the same topic and should be unified.' It also explains two modes of operation (by memory IDs or by topic) and the preview flag. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, though sibling names imply other options.

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