memory_rebase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the action won't take effect immediately, which is valuable, and implies a manual verification step by the owner. However, it does not disclose whether this is a mutation, whether it modifies or creates records, whether it is reversible, or what the side effects are. The transparency is partial at best.

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 a single sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It front-loads the primary condition and action. It could be slightly more direct about the tool's core intent, but overall it is concise and structured acceptably.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and three required parameters, the description is inadequate. It omits parameter meanings, return values, error behaviors, and concrete usage context. While it provides a high-level process overview, an agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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%, and the description provides no mapping or explanation for the three required parameters (directory, entry_id, expected_id). It references concepts like 'current valid version' and 'old proposal' but never connects them to the parameters, leaving an agent without any semantic guidance for filling the arguments.

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 states a specific action: re-submitting a proposal to the current version after the owner verifies it against the old version. It clearly identifies the resource (proposal/version) and the sequencing, and the explicit note that it won't take effect immediately adds a distinguishing characteristic. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies a use case: when an owner has verified that the current valid version differs from an old proposal and wants to bring the proposal in line with the current version. It gives a precondition but does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as memory_reject or memory_resolve. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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