memory_correct

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

Annotations show it's a mutation (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint false). The description adds that it refreshes git context for future freshness checks, aligning with annotations and extending transparency.

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, front-loaded with action and context, no wasted words. Essential information is efficiently presented.

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?

With 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, preconditions, and effect. It references the related freshness check, but could mention error cases or prerequisites for completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add new parameter details beyond what's in the schema, but it contextualizes them within the tool's purpose.

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 it updates a memory flagged by memory_check_freshness, replacing content and refreshing git context. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_confirm or memory_forget.

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 specifies when to use: after code changes cause a freshness flag. It implies not for fresh memories or direct edits, but doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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