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' parameter for session-based voting enforcement, which adds some context about behavior, but it lacks details on effects (e.g., does upvoting increment a score, is it reversible, what permissions are needed), response format, or error handling, leaving 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Upvote a memory') and adds necessary context without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise 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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation action) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and a key parameter behavior, but without annotations and with low schema coverage, it should do more to explain effects, errors, or usage nuances.

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 description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'voter_id' ('to enforce one vote per session'), adding meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't address 'memory_id' or provide details on parameter formats, constraints, or interactions, resulting in incomplete coverage.

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 verb 'upvote' and resource 'a memory', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'downvote_memory' or 'unvote_memory' beyond the obvious directional difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 by mentioning 'voter_id to enforce one vote per session', which suggests context for when to provide this parameter, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'downvote_memory' or 'unvote_memory', nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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