memory_apply_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It never states whether applying a summary overwrites existing lane content, persists data, or has side effects on raw message history. The verb 'apply' implies mutation but discloses no behavioral consequence.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the key action appears first. It is under-specified in other dimensions, but as a brevity/order check it is efficient and readable.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply behavior, return, and side-effect context; it supplies only purpose and timing. An agent would be uncertain whether this replaces a lane's messages or stores a separate summary, and what response to expect.

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 0%, and the description does not explain agent_id, the meaning of lane values, or the expected format of summary. The phrase 'lane summary' weakly maps to lane and summary, but it adds little beyond the schema property names.

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 identifies a specific action (apply) and resource (lane summary), and the parenthetical clarifies it is the commit step after summarization. It is distinct from siblings like memory_get_lane or memory_save, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

'After LLM summarization' provides a clear temporal/usage context for when the tool should be invoked. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative sibling tools, but the condition is explicit enough for an agent to place it in the pipeline.

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