promote_memory

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

With annotations absent, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses dry-run and force modes, explains that target is a storage format (not a file path) configured via LTM_VAULT_PATH, and lists ValueError conditions. It also specifies return values. It does not clarify whether promotion copies or moves memories, but provides substantial context overall.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a concise one-line purpose, followed by brief context, then organized Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, parameters, returns, and error handling. Gaps include lack of clarity on whether memory_id and auto_detect are mutually exclusive and what happens when neither is provided. Since an output schema exists, return structure is covered, but default behavior remains ambiguous.

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 does this thoroughly: memory_id is described as a valid UUID, auto_detect as automatic candidate detection, dry_run as a preview, target as a storage format with env var configuration, and force as overriding criteria. These details go well beyond the bare 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 opening line 'Promote high-value memories to long-term storage' uses a specific verb and resource, and the description clarifies the criteria ('high scores or frequent usage') and result ('become permanent'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling memory tools like save_memory or touch_memory.

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 provides clear context by explaining that memories with high scores or frequent usage are promoted, implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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