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 states the action ('Remove a prior vote') but doesn't clarify whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, if it's reversible, or what happens if the vote doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states the basic action but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and usage context. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the description should do more for a mutation tool.

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 descriptions. The description mentions 'voter_id' but doesn't explain what 'memory_id' represents or the format/constraints for either parameter. It adds minimal semantic value beyond naming one parameter, failing to compensate 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 ('Remove a prior vote') and the target resource ('from a memory by voter_id'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'upvote_memory' and 'downvote_memory' by specifying removal rather than addition. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'remove_memory' (which likely deletes the entire memory), leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a vote must exist first), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_memory' or explain the relationship with 'upvote_memory'/'downvote_memory'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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