haops_consolidate_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses role restrictions ('Admin and architect roles ONLY') and the replace-mark action. It implies replacement of old baseText, which is a destructive behavior, but does not elaborate on reversibility or 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 two sentences with a clear action and purpose, plus a role restriction. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage context. However, it lacks details about return value or error behavior, which would be helpful since there is no output schema.

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% and the description adds value by clarifying that newBaseText should incorporate pending log entries and that integrateUpTo defaults to all pending when omitted. This goes beyond schema parameter descriptions.

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 does 'consolidate entity agent memory' by replacing baseText and marking log entries as integrated. It differentiates from siblings like haops_append_memory by focusing on consolidation rather than appending.

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 provides explicit guidance to 'Use this to keep baseText concise by integrating accumulated log entries.' However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or discuss alternatives like haops_append_memory.

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