memory_feedback

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

The description discloses that positive feedback raises a memory's ranking and negative feedback lets it fade, affecting all user tools. This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the nature of the modification. It also emphasizes it is a learning signal, not a log, adding clear behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose, then explaining effect, then providing usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, effect across tools, and parameter provenance. The annotations fill remaining gaps (destructive, idempotent hints). No crucial information is missing for correct 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 schema already has 100% coverage, describing atom_ids as coming from memory_read results and outcome as a -1 to 1 scale. The description reinforces that atom_ids are from memory_read results, adding contextual provenance beyond the schema. This extra guidance justifies a score above baseline 3.

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's purpose: 'Report whether memories returned by memory_read were actually helpful.' It specifies the verb 'report' and the resource 'memories', and distinguishes its role as a learning signal rather than a log. The title 'Rate Memory Helpfulness' from annotations reinforces this.

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 states when to use: 'Call it right after you act on (or reject) recalled memories.' It also clarifies it is 'not a log,' implying when not to use. However, it does not directly contrast with sibling tools like memory_stats or memory_delete, which slightly reduces differentiation.

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