memo_procedure_promote

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or state changes beyond implying a write operation by 'promote'. Lacks detail on what happens to the original memories.

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 a single sentence, but it lacks structure. While front-loaded with the purpose, it sacrifices necessary detail for a tool with multiple parameters and complex behavior.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotation support, and an output schema with no explanation), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover what the output represents or any prerequisites for successful use.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain the meaning of any of the 6 parameters (e.g., memory_ids, title) or the default values, leaving agents blind.

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 'promote' and the resource 'grounded memories' into a 'reusable procedure/failure pattern', distinguishing it from sibling tools like memo_procedure_candidates which likely suggests candidates, and memo_save which saves raw data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a procedure from scratch versus promoting memories. No explicit usage context or when-not-to-use.

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