memory_consolidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool merges/removes memories (dedupe, conflict resolution), which hints at mutation of existing data, but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, expected duration, or whether it runs synchronously — all material for a consolidation job.

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?

Two short sentences, operations front-loaded, timing recommendation second. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, mutation-style tool, the description should at least address scope defaults and the nature of the result. It covers what and when but leaves the agent guessing about the effect of omitting scope and what a successful run returns.

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% and the single 'scope' object already documents its four sub-fields (user_id, agent_id, tenant_id, session_id) and their multi-tenant isolation purpose. The description adds nothing about scope semantics, and notably does not say what happens when the optional scope is omitted (all users? current session?). Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 names the resource (memory) and enumerates four concrete operations: dedupe, conflict resolution, session summarization, and profile refresh. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_search, memory_add, and memory_forget, which cover retrieval, insertion, and deletion rather than batch consolidation. It stops short of a single crisp verb+object statement, but the operation list is specific enough to act on.

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?

'建议在会话结束后调用' gives an explicit trigger condition — call it at the end of a session — which is the main decision an agent needs to make. There is no guidance on when NOT to call it, no mention of cost or idempotency, and no reference to an alternative sibling if the agent only needs one of the four operations.

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