memory_dismiss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether rejection is permanent, whether it discards the proposal or merely defers it, what permissions are needed, or what happens to the underlying memory. Only the bare mutation intent is communicated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, at one short clause it is arguably undersized for a destructive state-changing tool, so the brevity is as much under-specification as conciseness.

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 mutation tool with one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin: an agent cannot determine side effects, reversibility, or where the synthesis_id comes from. The missing pieces are exactly the ones the description would have to supply.

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 sole parameter, synthesis_id, is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'merge/promote proposal' loosely implies the id targets a proposal, but the description never explicitly maps the parameter to it or states its format/source.

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 gives a specific verb ('Reject') and a clear object ('a merge/promote proposal'), so the agent knows this is a state-changing rejection of a pending proposal. It does not, however, use the term 'synthesis' that appears in the parameter and sibling names, so the link to memory_pending_synthesis/memory_resolve is left implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reject versus when to use memory_resolve, memory_consolidate, or memory_pending_synthesis, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the one-line purpose.

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