memory_confirm

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it updates the confirmed timestamp and suppresses re-flagging until the code changes further. This explains the effect and side-effect, while idempotentHint already indicated safe repetition. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no wordiness. The first sentence states the core action and condition; the second explains the effect. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose, effect, and relation to memory_check_freshness. It could mention error handling (e.g., if the id is not flagged) for completeness, but overall it is sufficient.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (UUID of the memory item). The tool description does not add further meaning about the parameter, but the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage. The description references the context of flagging, which indirectly clarifies what kind of id is accepted.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: confirming a memory flagged by memory_check_freshness as still accurate. It specifies the resource ('memory flagged by memory_check_freshness') and the verb ('confirm'), and distinguishes from related tools like memory_correct and memory_forget by referencing the flagging mechanism.

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 usage when memory_check_freshness has flagged a memory and the agent believes it is still accurate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent familiar with the memory ecosystem to make appropriate decisions.

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