memory_revalidate

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

With no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description takes responsibility. It clearly states that preview is non-mutating and confirm clears the stale flag (mutation). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 extremely concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with 'Change-propagation surface', and uses structured listings for each action. No superfluous words; every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (3 actions, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core purpose and action behaviors. However, it lacks details on return format, scope/namespace effects, and fails to specify how results from 'list' are structured.

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 the schema already describes each parameter well (e.g., action enum values). The tool description adds narrative context but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 defines the tool as a change-propagation surface with three distinct actions (list, preview, confirm), each with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like memory_list by focusing on flagged memories needing revalidation.

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 contexts (e.g., list to see stale memories, preview to check impact, confirm to clear), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like memory_list or memory_verify. No when-not-to-use advice.

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