memory_propose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that proposals are invisible until ratified, validation occurs at ratification time, and that drafts may be rough. This provides necessary behavioral context beyond just the tool name.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, second explains implications, third gives usage context. Very concise and well-structured.

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?

For a proposal/draft tool, the description covers lifecycle (invisible until ratification), validation timing, and use case. No output schema is needed. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add extra semantic meaning to the parameters; it only contextualizes the tool's purpose. 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?

The description clearly states the tool stages a DRAFT memory in a capture-propose queue for later ratification. It distinguishes itself from authored memory by explaining proposals are invisible to recall, memory_list, etc. The verb 'stage' and resource 'DRAFT memory' are specific and differentiate it from sibling tools like memory_ratify.

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 explains when to use this tool: 'when a background lane wants to suggest a write without committing it'. It implies the alternative is ratification via memory_ratify. While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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