memcp_reinforce

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that helpful insights get a score boost and stronger edges, while misleading ones are penalized, and mentions closing the learning loop. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or requirements like authorization.

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 concise (3 lines plus Args) and front-loaded with the purpose. It could be slightly more structured but contains no fluff.

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 and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's effect (score/edge changes) and parameter roles. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use it 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'helpful: True if the insight was helpful, False if misleading'), adding significant context beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool provides feedback on an insight, marking it as helpful or misleading, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle context management, search, and consolidation.

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 usage (when you want to reinforce an insight) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about appropriate contexts.

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