digest_conversation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic saving and extraction scope, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'save them as memories' entails operationally. For a tool that modifies memory state, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, the second provides primary usage timing, and the third adds parameter context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 (memory creation/updating), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks behavioral details about the mutation operation. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more transparency about the write operation would improve completeness.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter: 'You can also pass a summary text to extract facts from.' This explains the optional 'summary' parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type information. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description effectively compensates by clarifying when and why to use this parameter.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('digest', 'extract', 'save') and resources ('conversation', 'decisions, preferences, and facts', 'memories'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'extract_decisions' by covering broader extraction and automatic saving, and from 'remember' by focusing on session-level digestion rather than general memory creation.

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 guidelines: 'Call this at the end of a conversation to preserve important knowledge.' It also offers an alternative usage scenario: 'You can also pass a summary text to extract facts from.' This clearly indicates when and how to use the tool versus other memory-related siblings.

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