consolidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that this is a batch write, that it archives obsolete notes (a destructive side effect), and that it preserves other projects' cards (scope boundary). It omits reversibility, required permissions, and any rate/cost caveats, so not a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences: purpose first, then the critical timing constraint, then the safety guarantee, then the return. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 2-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers purpose, invocation timing, side effects, scope boundaries, and the return value (triage summary report). Remaining gaps (reversibility of archiving, auth requirements) are modest.

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 100% and the schema already documents 'source' (tag semantics, preservation, allowed characters) and 'userId' (default namespace). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource (cognitive memory maintenance / AutoDream) and enumerates concrete sub-actions: synthesizes progress, archives obsolete notes, updates the project dashboard. This is clearly distinguishable from the read/save siblings (get_fact_lineage, get_current_state, save_fact, search_memory).

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-call condition ('session close or after major milestones') and an explicit when-not ('NOT on every turn'), which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of naming alternative siblings for adjacent needs, so it is not a full 5.

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