boost_memento_confidence

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses mechanics thoroughly: base boost (+0.10), cap (1.0), validation bonus (+0.10-0.20), and maximum bound. Missing explicit statement on idempotency or error behavior when memory_id is invalid, but covers primary behavioral traits well.

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?

Well-organized with clear headers ('Use for', 'Usage patterns', 'Boost mechanics'). Front-loaded with the core purpose. Length is appropriate for the complexity, though the mechanics section slightly duplicates schema details (default values) while adding context.

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?

Comprehensive coverage of usage scenarios and mathematical mechanics given no output schema exists. Explains the mutual exclusivity logic between memory_id and relationship_id implicitly through usage patterns. Does not clarify return values or error states, but sufficient for invocation decisions.

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% (all 4 params fully documented). Description adds value by specifying default boost amounts (+0.10) and validation ranges in the 'Boost mechanics' section, providing semantic context for the 'boost_amount' parameter beyond the schema's generic number description.

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 specific action ('Boost confidence') and resource ('memory'), and implies narrow scope through 'when successfully used'. Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'adjust_memento_confidence' (which implies bidirectional modification), leaving slight ambiguity about why choose this specific tool.

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 explicit 'Use for' and 'Usage patterns' sections listing specific contexts (reinforcing valid knowledge, after applying solutions, team confirmation). Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or naming of alternatives like 'adjust_memento_confidence', preventing a 5.

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