rate_memory_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the enabling mode condition and lists reason categories, but does not address idempotency, side effects, error handling, or permissions. This is acceptable but leaves significant gaps.

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 three sentences and gets to the point quickly. The first sentence states the action, the second gives usage scenarios, and the third lists reasons. It is efficient, though the list of reasons could be formatted more cleanly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 3 required, output schema exists), the description covers the core use case and reasons but omits explanations for the 'helpful' and 'note' parameters. It also lacks details on prerequisites or error conditions. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input semantics are incomplete.

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 description adds meaning for 'call_ts' (timestamp from response) and 'reason' (enumerates values), but does not mention the 'helpful' boolean or the optional 'note' parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves two parameters completely unexplained.

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 verb 'rate' and the resource 'prior retrieval by call_ts', distinguishing it from sibling CRUD/search tools. The phrase 'rate a prior retrieval' is specific enough to convey the feedback function, though the jargon about MEM0_LITE_FEEDBACK_MODE slightly reduces clarity.

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 concrete scenarios for when to call ('used a hit', 'missed a fact', 'irrelevant noise') and when to skip ('empty-and-expected results'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but siblings are clearly for memory management, not rating, so the guidance is sufficient.

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