promote_memory

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose side effects. It mentions permanence, dry_run preview, force override, and storage format details. However, it does not state whether the original memory is moved or copied, or whether the operation is destructive to the source, which is a significant transparency gap.

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 front-loaded purpose, followed by a clear Args section that adds essential context. It also includes Returns and Raises sections. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

The description explains the return format and error cases, and the parameter details are thorough. It only lacks explicit clarification on mutual exclusivity of memory_id and auto_detect, and the exact promotion criteria threshold, which would make it fully complete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: memory_id (valid UUID), auto_detect (candidate detection), dry_run (preview), target (storage backend and format note), and force (override criteria). This adds substantial meaning 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 description uses a specific verb 'promote' with resource 'memories to long-term storage' and clarifies the high-value criterion. It clearly distinguishes from sibling operations like save_memory by focusing on moving high-value memories to permanent storage.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (to make high-score or frequently-used memories permanent) and explains parameters that affect usage (memory_id vs auto_detect, dry_run for preview). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.