tidbits-memory

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 the 'voter_id' for vote enforcement, adding some context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens on downvoting (e.g., effects on memory visibility or scoring). This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and adds necessary context without waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and key parameter context but lacks behavioral details like permissions or side effects, leaving gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'voter_id' enforces 'one vote per session,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema. However, it doesn't cover 'memory_id' or provide full compensation for the coverage gap.

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 action ('downvote') and target resource ('a memory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'upvote_memory' or 'unvote_memory' beyond the directional difference, missing explicit distinction.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'voter_id to enforce one vote per session,' suggesting when to use this parameter, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'upvote_memory' or 'unvote_memory,' or any prerequisites.

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