confirm_memory

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: the operation only applies to memories in a pending state, and the negative counterpart is forget. It doesn't say what confirmation does downstream (e.g., whether the memory becomes recallable) or how it errors on a non-pending id.

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 short sentences: action first, then usage context, then the reject alternative last. No repetition of annotation data and no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the action, the input source, and the sibling routing an agent needs. Only the post-confirmation effect and failure mode for already-confirmed or unknown ids are left implicit.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented, including where to source the value, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'by source_id' phrasing loosely reconciles the memory_id field name with the source id concept, but that mapping is already stated in the schema itself, so it adds little beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (confirm a pending memory) plus the required identifier, and explicitly contrasts itself with the reject path (forget). An agent can distinguish it from list_pending, forget, and recall without inspecting any schema.

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?

Gives the operating context ('during review to accept a memory the agent captured'), the origin of the input ('typically picks from a list_pending result'), and the explicit alternative ('To reject instead, call forget with the same memory_id'). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both spelled out.

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