memory_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and does so richly: exact confidence deltas (+0.1 success, +0.15 for first-time cross-agent validation, -0.2 failure with 0.05 floor), freezing and queued review for 'contradiction', immediate archiving for 'obsolete', rejection of any other value, ownership restriction for private 'agent-<name>' namespaces, and archiving being reversed on feedback. This is far beyond what any structured field provides.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the trigger before enumerating outcomes, and every clause carries information not present in the schema. The dense run of parentheticals makes it slightly heavy to scan, but there is little genuine filler to cut.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers timing, per-outcome behavior, and authorization thoroughly. The one remaining gap is what the caller receives back (returned confidence, review-entry id), though the state changes themselves are disclosed.

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, and it does: every meaningful value of 'outcome' is defined with its side effect and the default is noted, and 'agent' is constrained to "your own source agent id" with the private-namespace ownership rule spelled out. Only 'mem_id' is left implicit, which is reasonable for a self-evident identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Report feedback on a memory with an outcome") and immediately differentiates itself from siblings like memory_write/memory_get by framing feedback as the step after a memory is adopted. The compounding-loop phrasing makes its role in the memory lifecycle unambiguous.

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?

"call after actually adopting a memory" gives a clear trigger condition, and the per-outcome effects tell the agent which outcome applies when. It stops short of explicitly comparing itself to the sibling tools or stating when not to call it, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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