validate_task_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: 'Dry-run validation', 'has no side effects', 'never writes to the knowledge base', and describes return values (acceptance, rejection reason, warnings, materialized note fields). No contradictions.

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 efficiently cover purpose, usage, and behavior without fluff. Front-loaded with primary action, then usage guidance, then behavior and returns. Every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers return fields (acceptance, rejection reason, warnings, materialized note fields) and states the tool is for validation. Could elaborate more on what constitutes 'high-quality' criteria but is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 context about what the tool does overall but does not discuss individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for any missing schema details.

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 validates a candidate task memory before persisting, using specific verbs ('validate') and resources ('task memory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling write_task_memory with the 'Dry-run' qualifier and explicitly names it as the counterpart.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use this after meaningful work and before persisting a lesson'. States it has no side effects, indicating safe dry-run usage. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond implying write_task_memory is the next step.

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