memory_resolve

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of 'approve, reject, or dispute' confirms mutation behavior. However, it does not disclose what state changes occur (e.g., whether the memory is updated or deleted) or any side effects. It adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word is necessary, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is too brief for a mutation tool with 3 parameters. It omits critical details such as the meaning of 'supersedes_id', the result of invoking the tool, or any constraints. The description leaves significant gaps in the agent's understanding.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not elaborate on any parameter (e.g., what 'memory_id' refers to, how 'decision' affects the memory, or the role of 'supersedes_id'). It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent without meaningful parameter guidance.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: to approve, reject, or dispute a memory after a form-elicitation response. The verb 'resolve' combined with the resource 'memory' and the three specific actions distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_get, memory_observe, etc., which are read or observation tools.

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 implies the tool should be used after a 'real form-elicitation response', but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it. Sibling tools are listed but no comparison provided.

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