Reinforce

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the decay-slowing effect, which is genuinely informative, but it never explains that the operation is non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false) or whether repeated reinforcements stack.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and the rationale trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose and the observable effect, which is largely sufficient. The main omission is guidance on when this mutating call is warranted versus simply recalling or re-remembering.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'id'. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup semantics for obtaining a valid memory id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Mark...as confirmed or useful') plus resource ('a memory') and a stated effect ('so it decays more slowly'). The purpose is clear and distinct from remember/recall/forget, though no sibling is named to sharpen the boundary.

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 phrase 'right now' hints at when to call it (at the moment the memory proves useful), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of forget/remember as alternatives, and no conditions for repeated invocation. Usage is only implied.

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