correct

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and description explains the in-place mutation and append-only revision history, providing sufficient behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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-structured with clear sections, but slightly verbose (e.g., version/issue reference). Every sentence adds value; no wasteful repetition.

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?

Covers behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and use cases adequately. Output schema exists and is not required to be explained. Could mention return behavior but not necessary.

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 0%, but description fully compensates with detailed Args section: explains 'rid', 'reason' (required, recorded for audit), 'new_text', 'new_importance', 'new_valence', and 'metadata_merge' with defaults and constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the tool corrects an existing memory in-place with revision history. It provides a concrete example ('Actually, we're using Python 3.12...') and distinguishes from siblings by noting in-place mutation vs tombstone approach.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly tells when to use (user corrects a recalled fact) with an example. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear and sibling tool list implies alternatives.

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