memory_verify

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

Discloses key behaviors: resets staleness clock, bumps verification counter, lighter than memory_store(supersedes:). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adequate coverage for a simple verification tool.

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?

Very concise: 4 sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with main purpose, then effects, usage context, and alternatives. No wasted words.

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 simplicity of the tool (verify a fact), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, behavior, and when to use. No output schema, but the effects are described. Minor gap: no explicit mention of return value, but acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. It repeats the schema's explanation of fact_id and workspace_id.

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 verb ('confirm') and resource ('existing fact'), and distinguishes it from siblings like memory_store(supersedes:) and memory_forget. It specifies that it does not re-store the fact, only verifies accuracy.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: when memory_heartbeat surfaces a stale fact ID and you can confirm it's still true. Also gives alternatives: if fact is no longer true, use memory_forget or memory_store(supersedes:).

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