trusted_memory_review

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 the requirement for mutate capability (a permission trait) and that conflict resolution is explicit, but it fails to describe what actually happens on approval, quarantine, reject, or supersede—whether actions are reversible, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no fluff. The main verbs are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is clearly stated. The second sentence adds nuance but could be clearer; overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of action, clearance, tenant_id, groups_json, supersede_ids_json, or any other parameter. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 for parameter meaning. It does not mention any of the nine parameters, including critical ones like action (no enum values defined), reason, memory_id, or supersede_ids_json. The agent receives no guidance on valid values or parameter roles.

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 states a specific verb set (approve, quarantine, reject, supersede) applied to 'governed memory', which clearly identifies the tool's core function. It distinguishes from siblings like trusted_memory_propose or trusted_memory_recall, but does not explicitly name alternatives, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 mentions requiring the MCP mutate capability, which implies a prerequisite, and notes that conflict resolution is never inferred, hinting this is for explicit conflict handling. However, it does not clearly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like trusted_memory_conflicts or trusted_memory_recall, nor provide exclusions.

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