mark_accessed

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

Given the absence of annotations, the description discloses the fields affected by the action (last_accessed_at, access_count, salience), indicating a write operation. It does not mention error conditions or idempotency, but for a simple mutation, the key behaviors are conveyed.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and key details. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential action and effects. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., memory must exist) but is otherwise complete for its 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 has 100% coverage with its own description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description repeats virtually the same information ('Memory id to reinforce as recently accessed'), adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Mark a memory as accessed') and the specific fields updated ('last_accessed_at, access_count, and salience'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_memory' and 'delete_memory' by specifying a unique function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'update_memory' or other memory operations. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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