Report at task end which memory items helped or harmed, with IDs and notes, so the MIHAD memory system can verify and refine stored skills, facts, and preferences.
At the end of a task, report which memory items you used and whether they helped or caused problems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| success | Yes | ||
| task_id | No | ||
| used_ids | No | ||
| harmful_ids | No | ||
| helpful_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions reporting helpful or harmful items, but doesn't explain what happens with that data (e.g., is it used to update memory? are there consequences?). It doesn't state permissions, reversibility, or side effects. For a tool that likely influences a memory system, this is a notable gap.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the timing and action. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 6 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't clarify parameter usage, expected data formats, or behavioral consequences. It leaves the agent with significant ambiguity about how to correctly populate the fields (e.g., what constitutes 'used' vs 'helpful' vs 'harmful', how task_id relates, what notes should contain).
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 only vaguely alludes to a subset of parameters ('used memory items,' 'helped or caused problems'). With 6 parameters including success, notes, task_id, used_ids, helpful_ids, harmful_ids, the description does not explain the meaning, format, or relationships of these parameters. An agent would need to infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient given the zero schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb+resource ('report which memory items you used') and its timing ('at the end of a task'). It is reasonably distinct from siblings like memory_recall and memory_correct, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is clear: a feedback mechanism for memory usage.
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 provides a clear usage condition: 'At the end of a task.' This tells the agent when to call it. It doesn't explicitly exclude other times or name alternatives, but the timing constraint is a strong usage guideline. No misleading guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.