dismiss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that only one key->memory link is weakened, that ranking is lowered next time, that pending alias learning is cancelled, that the memory/other keys/content are untouched, and that the link is floored rather than severed so nothing becomes unreachable. That is unusually complete disclosure of effect and reversibility.

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?

Although multi-sentence, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds a distinct, non-redundant fact (what changes, what does not, how to choose between siblings). No 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 mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, and sibling disambiguation well. The only gap is the unexplained namespace parameter, which is a minor omission given how much else is disclosed.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for memory_id and key_id, including the helpful hint that recall returns both, but the third parameter (namespace) is undocumented in both the description and 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 opens with a specific verb+resource and a precise scope: 'Tell keymem a recalled memory was surfaced by the WRONG key.' It immediately clarifies the semantics (fact may be fine, just wrong pairing), which distinguishes it sharply from the correct() and forget() 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?

It explicitly routes the agent: 'Use correct() when the fact changed and forget() when it is simply wrong,' and separately distinguishes the case where 'the fact may be fine, it just should not have come up for this query.' Both when-to-use and alternatives are named.

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