verify_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool changes memory state to active and verified, indicating a mutation. However, it omits side effects, authorization needs, or whether verification involves comparison with HEAD. Minimal but acceptable at a basic level.

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 a single sentence with a clear prefix note. Every word adds value, no repetition of schema or annotations. Highly efficient for the information conveyed.

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 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks parameter details, return value description, and prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for the 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 coverage is 0% for parameters, yet the description provides no explanation of id, cwd, or confidence. This fails to compensate for missing schema metadata, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 the tool marks a memory as active and verified against current HEAD, distinguishing it from memory status updates. However, the phrase 'against current HEAD' could be more explicit about the verification process.

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 advises preferring manage_memory action=verify, providing a clear alternative. This helps an agent decide when to use this tool vs. another, though it does not explain the context for choosing this one.

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