memo_procedure_promote

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

Annotations provide no safety profile (all false). Description adds that it creates a durable memory and rejects sources not meeting thresholds, but does not disclose other side effects like whether source memories are modified or deleted. More behavioral context would be helpful.

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 concise sentences. First states purpose, second adds rejection detail. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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?

With 6 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain return value or effect on source memories. It says 'creates a new durable memory' but not whether sources remain unchanged. Adequate but not complete.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Tool description adds little beyond schema (e.g., repeats threshold condition for 'kind'). Schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Promote grounded memories into a reusable procedure/failure pattern.' It uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like memo_procedure_candidates which likely lists candidates rather than creating the promotion.

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 mentions that sources must meet thresholds based on 'kind', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., memo_procedure_candidates, memo_outcome_record). No guidance on 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.