memory_feedback

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that feedback is recorded and when, but it does not explain whether the feedback modifies future retrievals, whether repeated feedback for the same memory_id overwrites prior feedback, or whether this action is reversible. These are meaningful gaps for a memory-system tool.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds the practical timing/condition in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While the tool is simple, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must fully support invocation and behavior expectations. It omits the meaning of agent_id, whether feedback is appended or overwrites, and what the tool does after being called. Given these gaps, the definition is not complete enough on its own.

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%, so the description needs to compensate for the parameter definitions, but it only mentions a 'retrieved memory' and 'useful or misleading'. It does not explain what memory_id refers to, how the 'useful' boolean maps to those outcomes, or what agent_id and its default mean. The agent must largely guess the parameter semantics.

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 resource: whether a retrieved memory helped the task. It further clarifies its purpose by specifying the timing 'after using a recalled memory when it was useful or misleading', which distinguishes it from siblings like memory_store and memory_recall without explicitly naming them. The small deduction is for lacking an explicit sibling contrast, but the overall purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit condition: 'Call this after using a recalled memory when it was useful or misleading.' This tells the agent when to use the tool but not when not to use it or when to choose an alternative, leaving a minor gap for an otherwise simple operation.

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