reinforce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect on recall ranking, the Hebbian co-occurrence link when passing multiple ids, and the strength range. It omits reversibility and error behavior, but covers the core side effects.

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 front-loaded and each sentence adds information. However, the first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Report which memories actually turned out to be useful' vs. 'report the ids of memories that actually helped'), costing it a perfect score.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers purpose, usage timing, parameter meanings, and behavioral consequences. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but these are not critical for this tool's use case.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: 'ids' are memory ids that helped, and 'strength' is given a numeric range (0.1-3.0) and its controlling effect. The multi-id linking behavior adds semantic depth beyond the 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Report which memories actually turned out to be useful.' It clearly distinguishes reinforce from sibling tools like recall (retrieval) and remember (encoding) by focusing on post-task feedback and ranking impact.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('When a task finishes') and gives context for multi-id usage (co-occurrence linking). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing condition is clear and actionable.

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