memory_set_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions switching presets but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires confirmation, or affects existing data. The presence of a 'confirm' parameter is not explained.

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, efficient sentence that contains no redundant information. It is optimally concise.

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 complexity (3 parameters, output schema, state-changing action), the description is too minimal. It omits necessary context about impact, usage scenarios, and parameter details, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all parameters. It only explains the 'preset' parameter by listing its values. The 'confirm' and 'project' parameters are completely undocumented in both the description and schema.

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 verb 'Switch' and resource 'embedding model', and names the two presets ('english' and 'multilingual'). It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory_model_info or memory_reembed.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to switch models, prerequisites, or consequences). The description only states the action without context.

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