memory_boost

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it states the boost is permanent and cumulative, and it describes the return value and error handling, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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, with a brief purpose statement followed by clear Args and Returns sections, ensuring every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for this simple tool: it explains the operation, parameter meanings, and return behavior, and references an output schema for detailed return structure, meeting all contextual needs.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates thoroughly by explaining the purpose of both parameters (memory_id and boost_amount), including default value and common usage amounts, making the parameters fully understandable.

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 action (boost) and the target resource (memory's importance score), and it differentiates this tool from its siblings by specifying the unique functionality of manually increasing importance for ranking in searches.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to boost importance for better ranking) and includes practical guidance on common values for boost_amount, but it omits explicit exclusions or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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