Revoir un candidat mémoire

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

The description discloses meaningful side-effects: approval publishes evidence, rejection blocks reintroduction via the write gate. However, with no annotations, it omits crucial details like reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior for already-reviewed candidates.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence packs the core action and consequences. No wasted words, and the approve/reject branches are clearly front-loaded.

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?

While the two outcomes are clear, the description lacks important context: what qualifies as a candidate, how to interpret 'évidence' and 'write gate', and what conditions must be met before calling. The 0% schema coverage and absent annotations make this incomplete for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. 'id' and 'reason' are left undefined; only 'decision' is implied through the approve/reject wording. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 dual function: approving a candidate (publishing its evidence) or rejecting it (blocking reintroduction). This specific verb+resource+effect structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_candidate_add or memory_add.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preconditions (e.g., candidate must be pending) or exclude other tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and siblings only.

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