rlm_memory_resolve_queue_item

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

No annotations provided; description only labels it as 'private review surface' without disclosing side effects, reversibility, or post-resolution state changes. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Single sentence front-loads purpose and actions; efficient but could expand slightly on behavioral impact without losing conciseness.

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?

No output schema, yet description omits what happens after resolution (e.g., item removal from queue). Does not contextualize relationship to sibling memory tools, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds no extra semantic value beyond listing actions and mentioning notes. Baseline score applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool resolves a queued memory item with verb 'resolve' and enumerates all possible actions. It distinguishes from siblings like rlm_memory_review_queue by framing it as a private review surface.

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?

Implied usage as a review surface, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like rlm_memory_supersede or rlm_memory_invalidate. No conditions for 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.