reinforce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does state two core effects: increasing importance and resetting the decay timer. However, it is not fully transparent about edge cases, such as set_value with a low boost_amount potentially not increasing importance, and it omits side effects like the default update_access behavior.

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 with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds a distinct behavioral consequence. Every word earns its place.

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?

The definition is adequate for a simple mutation tool with fully documented parameters, but it lacks guidance on when to choose reinforce over siblings and does not describe return or error behavior or edge cases like set_value. Given no annotations and no output schema, more context would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that boost_amount and boost_type affect importance and mentions the decay timer, but it does not explain the differences among additive, multiplicative, and set_value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Boost') and resource ('memory importance'), and explicitly contrasts with decay by noting it increases importance and resets the decay timer. This distinguishes reinforce from siblings like decay and 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 phrase 'based on usage or explicit feedback' gives an implicit trigger for when to use the tool, but it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as decay or consolidate. An agent must infer the appropriate context among 24 sibling tools.

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