confirm_memory

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 the tool boosts confidence without timestamp reset, but does not mention any bounds (e.g., maximum confidence), side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements. This is adequate but could be more explicit about operational limits.

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 extraneous information. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately distinguishes from a sibling. Every word adds value.

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 simplicity of the operation (a single numeric boost), no output schema, and clear differentiation from siblings, the description is largely complete. It could mention return values or status feedback, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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% (both parameters are documented). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on the parameters or their formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool boosts a memory's confidence score without resetting its timestamp, and distinguishes it from refresh_entity, which resets to 1.0. It uses a specific verb (boost) and resource (memory's confidence score) with explicit differentiation.

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 provides an explicit alternative (refresh_entity) and explains when to use this tool (incremental increase) versus when not (if resetting to 1.0 is desired). This gives clear guidance on selection among siblings.

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