lore_mark_usedReinforce cited note passages after an answer so used memories decay slower in spaced repetition. Call after citing a note to mark it as contributing.
Reinforce passages that actually contributed to your answer (spaced-repetition signal: used memories decay slower). Call after citing a note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| anchor | No | block anchor from search results; omit for whole note | |
| notePath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.38.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the effect of the call (used memories decay slower), which is real value beyond the name. However, it says nothing about idempotency, behavior on an unknown notePath/anchor, whether re-calling compounds the signal, or any auth requirement.
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 tight sentences with the action and its reinforcement signal front-loaded, then the invocation trigger. No filler.
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 simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials, but it leaves an agent guessing about the unexplained notePath parameter and error/idempotency behavior — gaps the annotations cannot fill since none are provided.
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 50% and the description explains neither parameter: notePath has no schema description and is not mentioned, and anchor is only implicitly hinted at by the word 'passages'. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Reinforce passages...') and clarifies the mechanism (spaced-repetition / slower decay), which distinguishes it from read/search/review siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with lore_review, the nearest sibling.
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?
Gives explicit timing guidance — 'Call after citing a note' — which is exactly the moment an agent needs to invoke this. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the reinforcement alternatives (e.g., lore_review), so it is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.