consolidate

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

The description explains the main behaviors (duplicate detection, fact promotion, pruning, report writing) but lacks detail on side effects, risk of data loss from pruning, or performance implications. With no annotations, more context about safety or permissions would be helpful.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the overall purpose ('Full memory graph maintenance') and lists specific actions. It is focused and avoids verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating actions).

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the maintenance report contains, whether the tool should be run periodically, or how it interacts with sibling memory operations. More context would be needed for an agent to decide confidently when to invoke it.

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?

Only one parameter (dryRun) with full schema description (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any information about the parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents it adequately.

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 specific verb ('consolidate') and resource ('memory graph maintenance') and lists concrete actions: finding duplicates, promoting facts, pruning stale observations, writing a report. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like recall, remember, link, etc., which are individual memory operations rather than maintenance.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, frequency, or conditions under which maintenance should be run. Sibling tools are listed but no comparison or exclusions are provided.

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