memory_consolidate

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details exactly what the tool does (scan, detect contradictions, merge duplicates, flag stale entries, compute health score), its side effects (merge, flag), and the return report content. There is no contradiction with missing annotations.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences and a brief analogy. It front-loads the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (full report with conflicts resolved, duplicates merged, before/after count). It covers when to run, what it does, and the parameters' effects, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds minimal extra context, such as referencing 'stale entries' and '90 days' which aligns with the stale_days parameter, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 as a cognitive memory consolidation garbage collector that scans lessons, detects contradictions, merges duplicates, flags stale entries, and computes a health score. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_crystalize and brain_doctor by specifying its role as a weekly consolidation tool.

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 advises running weekly or when brain_doctor reports >20 lessons, and provides an analogy to git gc. While it gives clear context for use, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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