memory_authorize_action

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it explains the gate logic (low-authority memory denied) and the override mechanism (trusted root or confirmed=True). There is a mild tension between readOnlyHint and the phrase 'records confirmation,' but the phrasing is ambiguous enough to read as the caller asserting a flag rather than a state write.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the decision rule. No redundant restatement of the name or title; every clause carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be covered. Still, for an authorization tool with a non-trivial trust model and two undocumented required parameters, the description is thin: what artifact_kind values mean and how to interpret a denial/approval are left implicit.

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 description should compensate, and it explains only one of three parameters (confirmed and its effect on the gate). artifact_kind and artifact_id are never mentioned, leaving the most fundamental inputs undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Check the authority gate before a consequential memory-driven action'), which is clear enough to distinguish an authorization check from status/listing tools. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from closely named siblings such as memory_guard_check or memory_guard_status, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It implies timing ('before a consequential memory-driven action') and states the denial condition, which is useful context. But it never names an alternative tool or an exclusion case, leaving the agent to guess how this relates to memory_guard_check or memory_guard_status.

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