memory_rebind

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it replaces the binding and refreshes the source_text_hash, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or permissions. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states purpose and usage context, the second explains the effect. No redundant words or information.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and when to use, but given the tool's complexity (many optional binding parameters) and lack of output schema, it does not explain how to specify the new binding or what happens if the memory doesn't exist. This leaves some gaps for an AI agent.

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% based on context signals, and the description only vaguely references 'symbol, chunk, path, or other source location' without mapping these to specific parameters like chunk_id, path, etc. The description does little to clarify the meaning of the many optional parameters, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 uses specific verb 're-anchor' and resource 'existing repo memory', clearly stating the tool updates a memory's binding after symbol moves/renames, distinguishing from obsoleting and recreating.

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 explicitly says 'use this after a symbol moves or is renamed rather than obsoleting and recreating the memory', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like memory_create or memory_update, but the context is clear enough.

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