memo_mark_reviewed

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

The annotations already indicate idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context by explaining that retries with identical evidence and actor are a no-op, which enhances transparency. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second addresses idempotency. Every sentence earns its place without any filler.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, idempotency, and a note on evidence sanitization. It does not fully explain 'verify the memory' or 'schedule its next review', but these are likely detailed in the output schema or elsewhere, so completeness is adequate.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by noting that evidence is sanitized before being persisted, which is not in the schema. This additional detail justifies a slightly higher score.

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 records review evidence, verifies the memory, and schedules the next review. It uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('review evidence'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memo_review_due' or 'memo_get'.

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 the tool is used when reviewing a memory, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not detailed.

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