touch_memory

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (updates last accessed time and use count), effects (resets decay, increases resistance), optional boost, return values, and error condition for invalid IDs. It does not mention permissions or side effects on other memories, but these are not critical for this operation.

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 with a clear purpose statement, mechanism explanation, and clearly labeled Args/Returns/Raises sections. It is appropriately detailed without unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool has only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, what it returns, and an error case. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 provides explicit explanations for both parameters: memory_id as 'ID of the memory to reinforce (valid UUID)' and boost_strength as 'Whether to boost the base strength'. This adds meaning beyond 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 clearly states a specific action ('Reinforce a memory by updating its last accessed time and use count') and resource (memory), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on creating, searching, or consolidating memories.

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 explains when this tool is useful (to reset temporal decay and increase resistance to forgetting) and mentions an optional boost, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like promote_memory or provide exclusion conditions.

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