memory_confirm

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

Description discloses key behaviors: marking as confirmed, upgrading protection, preventing auto-overwrite. However, it does not cover edge cases like handling non-existent or already locked memories, or reversibility. No annotations are provided to supplement.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient with no superfluous text, though a more structured form could improve readability.

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?

With 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits details about return values, parameter usage, and behavioral nuances for edge cases. No annotations help fill gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. Only memory_id is implied. The confidence and source_ref parameters are completely undefined, leaving their meaning unclear.

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?

Description clearly states the tool marks a memory as user confirmed, upgrades protection level to user_confirmed + locked, and prevents auto-overwrite. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_write or memory_arbitrate by focusing specifically on confirmation and locking.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or contrast with siblings like memory_arbitrate for conflict resolution.

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