ddflow_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about which actions mutate state, what gets destroyed or retired, persistence, dedupe refusal behavior, or side effects. The only behavioral hints (supersedes retirement, duplicate refusal) appear in schema parameter descriptions, not in the tool description itself.

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 front-loads the domain then compresses all ten actions into a compact bracketed list with no filler. The telegraphic style is dense but structurally sound; some tokens such as 'dupes' are terse at the cost of readability.

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 28-parameter, ten-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return shapes, mutation/safety profiles, dedupe refusal handling, and workflow placement. The schema covers parameters but the description does not complete the picture an agent needs to invoke actions confidently.

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%, and the description adds a useful action-to-argument mapping (lesson_add:title, link:subject/relation/target, forget:id/reason). But that mapping is incomplete and potentially misleading: lesson_add clearly also needs rule/summary/why/how, and add needs more than text, so an agent relying on the brackets alone would under-supply 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 names the domain (lessons, memories, recall, record links) and enumerates all ten actions with their essential arguments, so an agent can tell this is the multiplexer for lesson/memory operations. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as ddflow_rule or ddflow_bug, which is the main gap.

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 action list implies which action to choose for a given need (e.g., lesson_search(query), recall(query), link(...)) and states bracketed required arguments, which is real invocation guidance. However it never says when to use this tool over ddflow_rule/ddflow_bug, never says when not to, and gives no workflow placement such as calling recall at the start of work.

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