promote_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses dry-run preview, force behavior, return shape, and ValueError conditions, but it does not explain what promotion does to the source memory, the promotion criteria, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 docstring is compact and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by meaningful Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every line contributes information, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

The description covers parameters, return values, and errors, and an output schema exists, so the agent has much of what it needs. However, it leaves open important calling questions: whether memory_id and auto_detect are mutually exclusive, what happens if neither is supplied, and what qualifies as 'high-value'.

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 coverage is 0%, and the Args section compensates fully by explaining each parameter's purpose: memory_id is a UUID, auto_detect finds candidates, dry_run previews, target indicates format, force overrides criteria. This adds meaning entirely beyond the schema's bare type/default fields.

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 opening sentence 'Promote high-value memories to long-term storage' names a specific action and resource, so an agent can understand the tool's core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like consolidate_memories or save_memory, so it misses the top score.

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 says only what the tool does and documents parameters; it gives no guidance on when to choose promote_memory versus sibling tools such as consolidate_memories. There are no exclusions or alternative conditions, so the agent must infer usage context from the purpose line.

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