confirm_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: it 'refreshes validity but does not change content or key links', which tells the agent this is a targeted write rather than a content mutation. It does not state permission requirements, idempotency/rate behavior, or what a successful confirmation returns, so it falls short of fully covering a no-annotation mutation tool.

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 sentences, all load-bearing and front-loaded: purpose first, then the do-not, then the allowed triggers, then the mutation scope, then the sibling nuance. Slightly dense in the middle, but no sentence is filler.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, gating conditions, and side effects well, and even explains a relevant piece of a sibling's return payload. The remaining gap is the undocumented namespace and source object, plus no statement of the confirmation result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively maps the evidence enum to its three values (current user assertion = user, authoritative current source = authoritative_source, direct observation = observation), but adds nothing about memory_id, namespace, or the nested source object's expected shape.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (confirm), resource (a memory), and the condition of validity ('still current'), and the final sentence distinguishes it from the sibling auto-confirm path in recall. An agent can tell this apart from read_memory, recall, correct, and dismiss without opening any schema.

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?

It states explicit exclusions ('Never call this merely because read_memory returned the content'), states the enabling conditions ('only after a current user assertion, an authoritative current source, or direct observation'), and names the alternative path (recall's auto-confirm via memories[0].auto_confirmed) plus exactly when this tool is still needed.

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