Cortex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job explaining behavioral traits: it discloses that anchored memories 'survive context compaction, heat decay, and cannot be deleted without force.' This provides crucial information about persistence and deletion constraints that isn't available elsewhere.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste - the first explains what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what anchoring means) comes first.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema, the description does well on behavioral aspects but completely misses parameter guidance. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still explain parameter semantics given the poor schema coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'memory_id' or 'reason' parameters mean, their formats, or how they should be used. The schema shows 'reason' is optional with null default, but the description doesn't explain when or why to provide a reason.

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 ('Mark') and resource ('a memory') with specific purpose ('as compaction-resistant'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'forget' or 'rate_memory'. It explains what anchoring does rather than just restating the name.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Use for critical facts and active decisions'), giving practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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