marrow_record_deployment_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Record' implies a write operation, but it does not state whether this creates a new memory entry, whether it can overwrite existing memories, if specific permissions are needed, or what side effects occur. The existence of sibling update_memory makes this ambiguity more significant.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, followed by a comma-separated list of relevant fields. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

With 10 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidelines, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently across all cases. It lists many fields but fails to explain key parameters like status, when recording is appropriate vs updating, or what happens after recording (e.g., whether the memory is immediately retrievable).

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists 7 of 10 parameters in human-readable terms (PR, commit, tests, smoke result, rollback plan, production health, incident notes), which adds some meaning beyond bare property names. However, it omits status, environment, and release_id, and gives no details about formats, allowed values, or relationships between fields.

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 verb 'Record' and the specific resource 'deploy or incident memory', then enumerates the key fields such as PR, commit, tests, smoke result, rollback plan, production health, and incident notes. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from general memory operations like update or get.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as marrow_update_memory or other memory-related tools. It does not mention preferred scenarios, exclusions, or how to decide between recording a new memory and updating an existing one.

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