memory_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — source notes are retained and merged ones rank lower — which is genuine context. However, it says nothing about what happens to the pending proposal after resolution, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, or the return format.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the retention caveat immediately after. Appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation. The description omits how to obtain a valid synthesis_id, what resolution does to the pending proposal, and whether the write can be undone — significant gaps for a state-changing operation.

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 there are two required parameters. The description hints that 'text' is the synthesized fact and that 'synthesis_id' links to a pending proposal, but it adds no format, source, or constraint details for either parameter, so it does not compensate for the empty schema.

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 verb ('Store') and resource ('your synthesized fact') and scopes it to a 'pending proposal,' which maps to the memory_pending_synthesis workflow. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the nearest siblings (memory_write, memory_dismiss), leaving the 'resolve' semantics partly to inference.

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?

Phrasing 'for a pending proposal' implies the tool is used after a proposal has been surfaced, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite chain (e.g., obtain synthesis_id from memory_pending_synthesis), and no guidance on when to prefer memory_dismiss or memory_write instead.

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