cortex_force_consolidation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and operational impact, but it only says 'forces background sleep-cycle consolidation' without specifying consequences, safety concerns, idempotence, or whether this is a mutating action. 'Forces' hints at forcefulness, but important behavioral context is missing.

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 sentence and avoids filler and is appropriately front-loaded with the central action. However, the wording is somewhat terse and relies on domain jargon, so conciseness is achieved at the expense of clarity.

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 has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers only the bare action and leaves out why, when, and what 'limit' means. An agent can understand the high-level purpose but cannot correctly invoke or reason about the side effects.

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 only parameter, 'limit', has no schema description and 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'limit' controls (e.g., how many items are consolidated or how many records are affected). The description adds no semantic meaning to the single parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a clear verb and target ('forces ... consolidation') and clearly refers to the sleep-cycle consolidation operation, which separates it from siblings like cortex_inspect_graph or cortex_record_event. It is understandable at a high level, though the term 'consolidation' is somewhat domain-specific.

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 gives no guidance on when to invoke this tool manually versus manual alternatives or sibling tools. It implies a manual override over automatic behavior, but it never states the conditions under which an agent should choose this over another cortex_* tool.

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