touch_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains side effects (resets temporal decay, increases resistance to forgetting, optionally boosts base strength) and documents return values and errors. Minor gap: no mention of permission requirements or reversibility, but the operation is simple.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (overview, Args, Returns, Raises). Every sentence provides necessary 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?

For a low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers behavior, parameters, return values, and error conditions. It is self-sufficient despite missing annotations, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke 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's Args section compensates by explaining memory_id as a valid UUID and boost_strength as a boolean toggle. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though the default value of boost_strength is not repeated.

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 the action ('Reinforce a memory') and the specific mechanism ('updating its last accessed time and use count'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like promote_memory. It also mentions optional boost behavior.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or compare against alternatives. It implies usage through the verb 'reinforce' but lacks context about situations where this tool is preferred over siblings like consolidate_memories or open_memories.

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