memory_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the action of adjusting confidence and the conditional manual review queue, adding context beyond the verb. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is a write, if it is reversible, return format, or error handling, leaving notable gaps.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient and easy to scan, though it lacks structure for parameter details. It earns a high score for conciseness, not for completeness.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining parameter semantics and usage context. It explains the main behavior but omits parameter meanings and when to use this tool over siblings, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 does not explain the parameters memory_id, helpful, or note. The description implies 'helpful' relates to usefulness but never explicitly defines each parameter, leaving agents to infer meaning from types and names alone.

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 action (feedback on memory usefulness), the resource (memory), and the outcome (adjust confidence, possible manual review). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like memory_add, memory_update, and memory_review_resolve, which have different purposes.

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 the tool is for providing feedback on memory usefulness, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like memory_review_resolve or memory_forget. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative routing are provided.

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