memora

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses key behaviors: the change is 'permanent and cumulative,' it affects 'importance-sorted searches,' and it returns either the updated memory or an error if not found. It does not specify auth requirements or rate limits, preventing a perfect score.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. While the docstring format is slightly more verbose than a single paragraph, every sentence adds value, including the specific value examples for boost_amount and the explicit error condition in the Returns clause.

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 moderate complexity (two simple parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation's side effects (permanent ranking change) and parameter semantics sufficiently. It could be improved by clarifying the relationship to the memory_hybrid_search or memory_semantic_search siblings mentioned in the context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by providing semantic meaning for both parameters. It explains memory_id references the target memory, defines boost_amount as adding to 'base importance,' provides the default value (0.5), and offers qualitative guidance on common values (0.25 small, 1.0 large) that the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific action ('Boost a memory's importance score') and clarifies the mechanism ('manually increase... to make it rank higher in importance-sorted searches'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from general-purpose siblings like memory_update by specifying it targets the importance ranking system specifically.

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 usage context by noting this is a 'manual' operation affecting search ranking, and explains that the effect is 'permanent and cumulative.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this with memory_update or indicate when to prefer boosting over other modification methods.

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