promote_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that promotion makes memories 'permanent' and mentions a 'dry_run' option for previewing, which adds behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'permanent' entails operationally (e.g., irreversible changes).

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, elaboration, and clear sections for Args and Returns. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the elaboration could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameter semantics and the tool's purpose. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, which it correctly omits. However, for a tool that makes memories 'permanent', more behavioral context (e.g., side effects, prerequisites) would enhance completeness.

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 must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all 5 parameters: 'memory_id' for specific promotion, 'auto_detect' for automatic candidate detection, 'dry_run' for previewing, 'target' for destination (default 'obsidian'), and 'force' to override criteria. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail parameter interactions (e.g., 'memory_id' vs 'auto_detect').

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 tool's purpose: 'Promote high-value memories to long-term storage' with specific criteria (high scores or frequent usage) and destination (Obsidian vault or other storage). It distinguishes from siblings like 'save_memory' or 'consolidate_memories' by focusing on promotion to permanent storage, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage when memories have high scores or frequent usage, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_memory' or 'consolidate_memories'. It mentions 'auto_detect' for automatic candidate detection, providing some contextual guidance, but lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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