touch_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does enough by stating that it resets decay, that boost_strength increases base strength, and that the return dict exposes old_score, new_score, use_count, and strength. It also discloses the invalid-UUID error case. It does not cover reversibility, permissions, or rate limits, but the core side effects are clear.

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-style layout is tight and front-loaded: one purpose sentence followed by Args, Returns, and Raises. There is no repetition or filler; every line 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 tool's simplicity (two flat parameters) and an output schema in context, the description is nearly complete: it specifies inputs, effects, return fields, and an error condition. The main missing piece is guidance for choosing this over related memory tools, which is already counted in usage_guidelines.

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 0%, so the Args block is the only semantic source. It adds real meaning: memory_id is a Memory UUID and boost_strength increases base strength. It could clarify the boolean's true/false behavior and the default, but it compensates for the bare schema well.

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 line, 'Reinforce memory to reset decay,' names a concrete operation and resource with a clear goal. It is more specific than the generic tool name, though it does not call out how it differs from memory-related siblings like promote_memory or consolidate_memories.

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 provides no 'use when' guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description when touch_memory should be preferred over promote_memory or save_memory; the only trigger is the purpose clause 'to reset decay,' which is not developed into when-to-use guidance.

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