Assign a memory priority level (1=low, 2=normal, 3=high) so higher-priority memories rank higher in recall.
Quickly set memory priority (1=low, 2=normal, 3=high). Higher priority memories rank higher in recall.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | Disambiguate when same id exists in both scopes. | |
| priority | Yes | 1=low 2=normal 3=high. | |
| memory_id | Yes | Memory identifier. | |
| project_id | No | Further disambiguation for scope=project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the behavioral consequence ('higher priority memories rank higher in recall'), which is real value beyond a bare mutation statement. However, it says nothing about whether this overwrites an existing priority, permission requirements, or what is returned.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scale, with no padding. Minor redundancy with the schema's priority enum description, but the second sentence earns its place by explaining impact on recall.
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 four-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the action and the semantic effect of the value. The remaining gap is mutation safety context (overwrite behavior, permissions) that annotations would normally supply.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the priority scale and the scope enum. The description restates the 1/2/3 mapping and adds the recall-ranking effect, but adds no detail on the scope/project_id disambiguation, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('set memory priority') and defines the value scale inline. It is distinguishable from a generic update_memory, but the description never names update_memory or explains why this tool exists alongside it, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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 word 'Quickly' hints this is a lightweight single-field shortcut rather than a full update, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative is given. An agent must infer that update_memory is the route for other fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.