memory_update_intensity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral details: setting intensity 6+ results in 'highest priority in context injection' (context注入で最優先される), explaining the ranking mechanism. It also clarifies this is a partial update (only intensity). It does not mention error handling for invalid IDs or idempotency, but covers the key domain-specific behavior.

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?

Three tightly structured sentences with zero waste: (1) purpose/scope, (2) usage mechanics and threshold behavior, (3) prerequisite workflow. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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?

Complete for a simple 2-parameter update tool. It explains the domain concept (intensity/pinning), references the necessary sibling tool (memory_search) for the workflow, and describes the priority system's effect. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain return values for this type of operation.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds workflow semantics beyond the schema: it specifies that the ID should come from memory_search (establishing tool chaining) and elaborates on the 'context injection priority' effect of the intensity parameter, which is not fully explained in the schema's description of the number range.

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 'only changes the intensity of existing memory entries' (既存メモリエントリのintensityだけを変更する), using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from creation tools like memory_save by emphasizing 'existing' entries and narrowing scope to 'only intensity'.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: 'Used for pin operation' (ピン留め運用に使う) and specifies the prerequisite workflow 'Specify the ID obtained from memory_search' (memory_searchで取得したIDを指定すること). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for creating new entries) or name alternatives like memory_save.

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