agentbay_memory_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'verify' resets confidence decay and increments helpful count, and mentions unhelpful marking and alias management. However, it does not mention idempotency, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the tool is destructive.

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 that front-load the main purpose and then list additional capabilities. No filler, every sentence adds value. Excellent structure.

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 effectively explains inputs and effects but does not describe the return value (e.g., success confirmation, updated memory). With no output schema, this information is missing. For a tool with 5 parameters and multiple actions, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the effects of the 'verify' action (confidence decay, helpful count) and clarifies that the tool supports unhelpful marking and alias management, which goes beyond the schema's enum values.

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 it verifies memory accuracy, resets confidence decay, increments helpful count, and supports unhelpful marking and alias management. It differentiates from sibling tools like agentbay_memory_recall (retrieval) or agentbay_memory_store (creation). However, it could more explicitly contrast with similar 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 implies usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like agentbay_memory_recall for reading or agentbay_memory_forget for deletion. No guidance on prerequisites or when to choose 'verify' vs 'unhelpful' actions is provided.

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