memory_rebind

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Replaces the binding and refreshes the source_text_hash', which indicates a mutation and gives some detail about internal effects. However, it does not mention required permissions, potential side effects on other data, or any rate limits, leaving some uncertainty.

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 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: the first defines the action and context, the second explains the effect. It is concise, front-loaded with the key verb 'Re-anchor', and contains no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's complexity (rebinding a memory with many possible binding types) and the lack of an output schema or parameter descriptions in the schema, the description provides only a high-level overview. It does not explain constraints (e.g., memory must exist) or the full range of binding options, leaving gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'symbol, chunk, path, or other source location' which loosely maps to the bind object's properties, but it does not explain how to specify these via the parameters (e.g., which property corresponds to which concept). The bind object has many undocumented fields, making it difficult for an agent to construct correct arguments.

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 action ('Re-anchor an existing repo memory to a different symbol, chunk, path, or other source location') and the resource ('existing repo memory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'obsoleting and recreating the memory', making its unique purpose evident.

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 specifies the primary use case: 'after a symbol moves or is renamed'. It also advises using this tool 'rather than obsoleting and recreating the memory', providing a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to other similar tools like memory_update.

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