validate_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that trust score is capped at 1.0, records reason in trust history, and explains default boosts. This is transparent about the tool's effect, though it could mention if multiple validations stack or if there are any side effects beyond increasing trust score.

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 and well-structured: a clear first sentence states purpose, a second explains the effect, a third gives usage guidance, followed by a bullet list of reasons and a note about the cap. 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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics with concrete examples, and behavioral details like the cap. An output schema exists but is not needed for completeness since the description covers return behavior implicitly.

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%, but the description adds significant value by enumerating the three reasons with their default boosts and explaining how the 'boost' parameter overrides the default. This enriches the meaning of parameters beyond the schema entries.

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 action: 'Mark a memory as validated/confirmed useful.' It specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource 'memory', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'invalidate_memory' and 'mark_memory_used' by focusing on increasing trust score and recording reason.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you verify that a recalled memory is still accurate and helpful.' It also explains the different reasons and their default boosts, providing clear context for when to choose each. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives like 'invalidate_memory'.

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