memory_organize

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavioral traits. It does reveal distinct operations like 'decay stale records' and 'refresh the user profile,' suggesting data modification, but it omits whether changes are persisted, destructive, reversible, or require specific permissions. The dryRun parameter is never mentioned, further undermining transparency.

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 efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose ('Curate memory') and packs action semantics into a compact list. The use of slashes and parentheses makes it dense, but every segment adds some value beyond the schema.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations—this description provides only a high-level action menu. It lacks procedural details, parameter explanations, return-value information, and edge-case behavior, making it far from complete for autonomous agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 18 parameters. It only clarifies the action enum's meaning (e.g., 'reflect' = distill principles, 'decay' = stale record decay) but leaves all other parameters (offset, ageDays, scopeId, activeContext, etc.) completely unexplained. This is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 names the resource ('memory') and a clear verb ('curate'), then enumerates specific sub-actions with their semantic labels (reflect, profile, decay, calibrate/rebuild). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_recall and memory_write, though some phrasing like 'prepare/apply host-mediated active maintenance' is slightly jargon-heavy.

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 a maintenance/curation use case but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. There are no stated alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the action list alone.

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