update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it revises a memory and adds the term 'reconsolidation' for context, but it does not explain effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens during the revision process.

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 extremely brief—one short sentence. While this is concise, it is under-specified and does not convey enough information to be useful. The term 'reconsolidation' is jargon that adds some flavor but does not substitute for substantive guidance.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no detail about inputs, outputs, side effects, or use context, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 5 parameters, but the description provides zero parameter-level context. It does not mention memory_id, content, cues, confidence, or importance, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to populate them.

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 uses a specific verb 'Revise' with resource 'memory', clearly indicating a modification operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' (create), 'forget' (delete), and 'restore' (undo), though not as explicitly as desired.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisite conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where other memory tools would be more appropriate.

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