memory_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states that feedback is recorded, but lacks information on updates, side effects, permissions, or the mismatch between described feedback types ('useful, stale, corrected, reinforced') and the actual enum ('used', 'helpful', 'irrelevant').

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, the second provides context. No unnecessary details.

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 the tool has 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the impact of feedback on future retrievals, how to choose between enum values, or the overall workflow. More context is needed for a comprehensive understanding.

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 descriptions cover all 13 parameters, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters like 'purpose' or 'outcome' should be used in context.

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: recording feedback on a memory item after using retrieved context. It specifies the possible feedback types (useful, stale, corrected, reinforced) and explicitly ties to sibling memory_checkout, distinguishing it from other tools.

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 indicates the tool should be used after memory_checkout, as it 'closes the loop' on that context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer proper usage.

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