memory_apply_tool

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 describes the tool's action (creates a validation event) and mentions the return format (result with event ID or error), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens during errors. The description adds some value 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, explains the tool's role in the validation loop, lists parameters with brief explanations, and notes the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded effectively.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage), the description does a reasonably complete job. It explains what the tool does, its parameters, and mentions the return format. However, for a tool that creates validation events (likely a write operation), it should ideally mention permission requirements or side effects, which are missing.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all three parameters: memory_id ('ID of the memory being applied'), context ('Description of how/where the memory is being applied'), and session_id ('Optional session identifier'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify formats or constraints for these parameters.

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: 'Record that a memory is being applied' and 'Creates a validation event to track when a memory is used in practice.' It specifies the verb (record/create) and resource (memory/validation event). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_validate_tool or memory_outcome_tool, which may have related validation functions.

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 some implied usage context by stating 'This starts the TRY phase of the validation loop,' suggesting it should be used when beginning memory validation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_validate_tool or memory_outcome_tool, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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