confirm_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a side effect beyond the name — it re-links the memory to the current version of its files — but says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to conflicting/stale links.

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 the core action and followed by the qualifying scenario and the side effect. No filler, though the parenthetical adds a level of nesting that slightly slows reading.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple single-parameter mutation. However, with zero annotations the description should cover more of the mutation's behavior — permissions, reversibility, or how re-linking interacts with check_stale/sync_to_files — to be fully complete.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The parameter is a single self-evident identifier ('memory_id') for the memory being confirmed, so the gap is small, but no format or sourcing guidance is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark a memory as still true') and clarifies the state transition being reversed (retired when a linked file changed). This implicitly contrasts with mark_outdated and replace_memory, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 parenthetical supplies a concrete trigger condition — use it after a memory was retired because a linked file changed but the fact itself didn't. It does not state the inverse case (when the fact is no longer true, use mark_outdated) or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing guide.

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