brain_validate

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

The annotations show this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, and the description properly discloses the side effects: incrementing the validation count, recording the validating agent, and boosting confidence. This goes beyond the annotations and gives an agent a clear picture of the mutation.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then lists the side effects succinctly, making efficient use of the space.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and side effects sufficiently. It leaves out explicit alternative routing and edge-case behavior, but those are minor given the tool's low complexity.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters fully (id and optional agent), with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds light context by mapping 'records the validating agent' to the agent parameter, but it does not substantially enrich parameter understanding.

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 identifies the action ('Validate'), the resource ('an existing memory'), and the context ('current session'). It also lists concrete effects, making the tool's role distinct among siblings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate from.

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 the tool is for confirming that a memory was helpful, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus brain_recall, brain_learn, brain_forget, or other siblings. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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