verify_memory

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main side effect (updating the last_verified timestamp) and the return type ('A dictionary with status and message'). However, it does not discuss error handling, permissions, or behavior when the doc_id does not exist, which are relevant for a write operation.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, a usage hint, a rationale, and an Args/Returns section. Each sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, usage, parameter, and return value. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return format, and the description does that anyway. Minor gaps remain regarding error cases, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to apply it correctly.

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 only provides the type (integer) and title for doc_id. The description compensates fully by explaining its meaning: 'doc_id: The ID of the memory to verify.' This is sufficient despite the schema's 0% coverage.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Mark a memory as verified, updating its last_verified timestamp to now.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tools (save_memory, delete_memory, update_memory, query_memory).

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when you've confirmed the memory is still accurate and up-to-date.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide the agent.

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