memory_pending_synthesis

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the agent is the writer and that output items carry an `instruction` field to follow, but it never states whether calling this tool mutates state, whether items persist across calls, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the workflow instruction immediately after. The backtick-quoted `instruction` and the dense slash in 'Merge/promote' cost a little clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the workflow an agent must execute. The remaining gap is that it never states where synthesis_id or the pending items come from, forcing the agent to infer the entry point.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add context by naming the arguments the downstream calls require (synthesis_id, text), which helps the agent understand the data flow even though there is nothing to document on this tool itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: merge/promote proposals produced by consolidation. It distinguishes itself from memory_consolidate by describing the post-consolidation promotion step, though the phrasing 'merge/promote' is slightly ambiguous about whether the tool returns items or performs the merge itself.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: for each item follow `instruction`, then call memory_resolve(synthesis_id, text), or memory_dismiss if the proposal is wrong. It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. It does not say when to prefer this over memory_flush_pending or memory_consolidate, so it stops 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.