helped

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the effect (helpful memories strengthen, unhelpful decay) but lacks details on reversibility, idempotency, or error handling. For a simple feedback tool, the disclosure is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 concise (5 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then importance, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics adequately. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having performed a recall) or errors, but the tool's simplicity makes it reasonably complete.

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 description must compensate. The 'Args' section explains 'memory_id: from recall results' and 'did_help: boolean', adding meaning beyond the schema's types. This is adequate, though no examples or formats are provided.

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: 'Mark whether a surfaced memory actually helped.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'recall' (surfacing) and 'store' (creating). The feedback loop explanation adds useful context without ambiguity.

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 implies usage after memory surfacing with 'This feedback loop is what makes NeverOnce learn.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context makes it clear. The sibling tools are distinct (e.g., 'forget' for deletion), so it's adequately guided.

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