manage_memory

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only lists actions without discussing side effects, permissions, or consequences of each action, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 very concise with two sentences, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details, especially for a tool with 11 parameters. It is front-loaded but insufficient.

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 high parameter count and lack of output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain parameter dependencies for each action or provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for 11 parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare action list, failing to clarify the roles of id, toId, fromId, oldId, newId, reason, status, relation, and confidence.

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 'Manage memory lifecycle' and lists the specific actions (verify, mark, delete, link, supersede), distinguishing it from individual lifecycle tools by saying 'Prefer this over individual lifecycle tools.'

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 explicitly recommends using this tool over individual lifecycle tools, providing clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not specify situations where the individual tools might be preferable.

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