memory_review_decide

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

The description provides detailed behavioral semantics for each decision: 'approve applies the proposal's verbs at decide-time (with apply-time target re-validation)', 'reject leaves the spine byte-identical', and 'edit'/'promote' specifics. This goes well beyond the sparse annotations (all false) and clarifies that while not read-only, reject is non-destructive to the spine. It also discloses the return type.

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 three sentences: the first states the core purpose and options, the second details each option's effect, and the third states the return type. There is no filler or redundancy, and the structure front-loads the most important information.

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?

The description covers all decision types and their effects, and the output schema covers return details. Parameters are well documented in the schema (100% coverage). The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the need for edited_text with edit, but that is in the schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's explanation of each decision adds nuance (e.g., 'edit (summarize only)') beyond the schema's enum constraints, but it doesn't add syntax or required-field details; these are fully covered by the schema.

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 opens with 'Decide a maintenance proposal: approve | reject | edit | promote (§6.3)', clearly identifying the verb and resource and distinguishing it from queue/run siblings by listing the four decision actions. It also specifies the effect of each decision, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the semantics of each decision option but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_review_queue or memory_maintenance_run. The schema's proposal_id reference to memory_review_queue provides indirect context, but the description itself lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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