confirm_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the key side effect: 'Refreshes validity but does not change content or key links.' It also warns about auto-confirmation, preventing subtle misuse. It does not discuss idempotence or error behavior, but the main behavioral impact is clear.

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?

Four dense, purposeful sentences: action, negative guidance, side effects, and the recall exception are all front-loaded without filler. The only mild complexity is the implementation-specific `memories[0].auto_confirmed` reference, but it is relevant and clearly tied to when not to use the tool.

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?

The description supplies enough guidance for tool selection and invocation: what counts as evidence, when not to call, and what the tool does and does not change. It falls short of fully complete because the semantics of `source` and `namespace` are not addressed, and no return behavior is mentioned despite there being no output schema.

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 descriptions are absent, and the description compensates for the evidence parameter by translating its enum into practical terms: 'current user assertion, authoritative source, or direct observation.' However, the `source` object and `namespace` parameter remain unexplained, so the agent still has to infer their meaning.

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 a specific action ('Confirm that a memory is still current') tied to explicit evidence, and immediately distinguishes the tool from read_memory and recall's auto-confirmation path. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from its siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: never after a read_memory result alone, and only after a current user assertion, authoritative source, or direct observation. It also names the alternative flow (recall with a strong restatement auto-confirms), so the agent has a clear decision rule.

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