memory_boost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the boost is permanent and cumulative, and states the return type (updated memory or error). This provides sufficient transparency, though it could mention potential side effects like affecting all importance-sorted queries.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-line summary, an explanatory sentence, then args and returns. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded purpose is immediately clear.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter details, and return value. Nothing is missing for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by explaining both parameters: memory_id (ID of memory) and boost_amount (amount to add, with default and common values). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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's purpose: to manually boost a memory's importance score, making it rank higher in searches. It specifies the verb 'boost' and the resource 'memory's importance score', and it is distinct from sibling tools like memory_update or memory_list.

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 explains when to use the tool (to manually increase importance for better ranking) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to understand its appropriate use.

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