mem_reinforce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that strength only rises on external evidence, that self_report merely refreshes recency, and that failure lowers strength. This is substantial, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to know before calling the 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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose and the critical evidence rule with no filler. The most important constraint — external evidence only — is front-loaded and immediately actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly: what to pass, what each evidence value means, and the behavioral consequences. It could mention what the tool returns or whether reinforcement is reversible, but those are minor gaps given the schema already covers parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and explains each evidence enum value. The description restates the evidence semantics but adds little beyond the schema; it does clarify that 'saying it helped is not evidence,' which reinforces the self_report default. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record how a recalled skill turned out.' It clearly conveys the tool's role in reinforcement, and the evidence-based strength adjustment distinguishes it from generic mem_write/mem_update. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 when to use it — after recalling and applying a skill, to record the outcome. It gives meaningful guidance on what counts as valid evidence, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over mem_update or mem_learn, nor does it state exclusions. Usage context is clear but left mostly to inference.

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