memory_feedback

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

Annotations offer no safety signals, so the description carries the full burden. It does communicate that this records feedback and implies a write operation, but it does not disclose whether repeated feedback overwrites previous feedback, whether it is associated with a specific query, or what effect it has on future recall. For a mutating tool with no annotation support, this is a notable gap.

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, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and immediately defines the categories of feedback.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the expected feedback categories. It is adequate but incomplete: it does not explain the relationship between 'query' and 'memory_id', nor does it state when feedback should be recorded or what downstream behavior it influences.

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% and there are no enums. The description helps by naming the possible outcome values ('relevant, irrelevant, or incorrect'), which clarifies the 'outcome' parameter. However, it gives no explicit meaning or format for 'query' and 'memory_id', leaving those to be inferred from their names.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Record', and a clear resource: whether a recalled memory was relevant, irrelevant, or incorrect. This is concrete and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like memory_correct beyond the word 'feedback.'

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 context of use is implied: it is for recording feedback about a recalled memory. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over memory_correct, forget, or other memory-related sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a memory_id from a prior search.

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