memory_govern

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names operations without explaining side effects: whether delete is permanent, whether update overwrites or merges, exactly how 'attribute' affects memory, what pinning does to decay, or any permission/error implications. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that conveys the main action categories without unnecessary fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but its brevity contributes to ambiguity, slightly preventing a perfect score.

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?

This is a complex tool with 16 parameters, four actions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is far too minimal to be operationally sufficient; it omits required parameters per action, scoping conventions, return behavior, and safety considerations. The tool is under-specified for an agent to safely and reliably invoke it.

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 adds only high-level action semantics. It does not map parameters to specific actions (e.g., which params are needed for 'update' vs 'attribute'). 'Explicit scope required' hints at scopeId/scopeType, but most of the 16 parameters remain unexplained, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: managing memory records via four explicit operations (update, delete, attribute, pin/unpin). This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_recall (reading), memory_write (creating), and memory_organize (arranging). The verb 'manage' is broad, but the enumerated actions provide concrete specificity.

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—modifying or maintaining existing memory records—rather than creating new ones (memory_write) or retrieving them (memory_recall). It mentions 'explicit scope required,' a useful prerequisite. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity compared to memory_organize.

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