memo_mark_reviewed

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

The description discloses the tool's multi-step behavior (record evidence, verify, schedule) beyond the annotations. While annotations indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description adds context about scheduling, which is useful for an agent.

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, efficient sentence that conveys all necessary actions without filler. Every word adds value.

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 an output schema exists, the description lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether scheduling is immediate, how verification works). It is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity about the scheduling behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any of the three parameters (id, actor, evidence). Even though 'id' is clear, the other two are not mentioned, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs: 'Record review evidence, verify the memory, and schedule its next review.' This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like memo_review_due and memo_outcome_record.

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 usage for recording a review but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites or integration with other tools like memo_review_due.

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