reinforce

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a mutation ('strengthen and refresh') but does not specify what changes occur, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. It also uses metaphorical language that obscures the actual effect on the connection data.

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 a single sentence, making it concise and front-loaded with the action. However, the metaphorical phrasing ('keeps knowledge from decaying') adds unnecessary abstraction, and the sentence does not efficiently convey the operational details. It is adequately short but could be clearer.

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 3 parameters, lacks an output schema, and has no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters do, what the expected outcome is, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 has 3 parameters (src, dst, rel) with zero description coverage. The description neither mentions these parameters nor explains their meaning or relationship. Without any compensation, the agent cannot infer how to populate src/dst/rel correctly.

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 states a clear action ('strengthen and refresh an existing connection') and the resource (a connection). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'maintain' or 'connect', and the metaphor ('spaced-repetition signal') adds ambiguity. Still, it identifies the core purpose distinctly enough.

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 a context (when you have 'just used' a connection again) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'connect' or 'maintain'. It lacks any mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the vague context.

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