memory_reembed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but omits important details such as whether the re-embedding is destructive, requires certain permissions, or has performance implications (e.g., affecting all active memories).

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too brief for the complexity of the tool, lacking necessary details that could be added without harming conciseness.

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 one undocumented parameter and no usage guidelines or behavioral details, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly among many siblings.

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 description does not mention the only parameter 'project' (optional, string or null). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value beyond what the schema provides, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the parameter.

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 (re-embed) and the resource (all active memories) with a specific context (with the current model). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like memory_store or memory_recall by using a unique verb 're-embed'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like memory_set_model or memory_store.

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