distill_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions creating a distilled memory with reduced intensity and neutral valence, but does not disclose whether the original memory is altered or destroyed, a critical behavioral gap for a transformation tool.

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 with no wasted words. First sentence states action and output, second adds behavioral detail, third adds constraint. Efficient 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?

The description explains the input constraint and lists output components (signals, triggers, etc.), providing good context for planning agents. However, it does not indicate the return value (e.g., new memory ID) since there is no output schema.

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 100% and both parameters are adequately described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so baseline score of 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 verb 'Translate' and resource 'emotional_processing memory' and specifies the structured artifact output. It distinguishes from sibling tools like store_memory and delete_memory by focusing on transformation, not CRUD.

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?

It states the prerequisite that the tool only operates on emotional_processing memories, which gives clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving some ambiguity compared to other memory tools.

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