consolidate_memories

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

Explains critical behavioral detail: 'Provenance guarantee: every source_ids entry has its supersession_chain pointing at the returned id before this tool returns — even if the dream subagent crashes mid-loop.' This goes beyond empty annotations to disclose atomicity and crash resilience.

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?

Very concise: two terse sentences plus a usage note. Every phrase 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?

High complexity (8 params, atomic operation, crash recovery) is well-addressed. Existence of output schema (not shown) reduces burden. Description covers provenance guarantees and general workflow, making the tool self-contained.

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% (no param descriptions). The only hint is 'source_ids' and 'content' in the main description, but 6 other parameters (type, context, tags, reason, project, scope) are undocumented, leaving the agent to infer from schema 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Atomic consolidation: create a new memory from N source memories and supersede every source in one operation.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like remember and forget by emphasizing atomicity and provenance.

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?

Provides precise guidance: 'USE THIS WHEN: merging near-duplicates or promoting an observation cluster to a lesson.' Also advises preferring this over remember+forget paths to preserve audit trails.

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