memory_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a write operation (storing feedback), whether it is idempotent, whether prior feedback is overwritten, or any side effects. It only describes the action and when to call it. For a tool that persists data, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the action and scale, and the second provides the invocation condition. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 simple feedback tool, the description is adequate for basic usage. It covers the purpose and when to call, and the output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, it leaves out the meaning of 'experience_id' and the fact that this is a mutating operation. An agent might call it without fully understanding the required identifier or the persistence implications, making it minimally complete.

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. It adds meaning to 'rating' by defining the 1-5 scale and its endpoints. However, it does not explain 'experience_id' (that it likely refers to a memory_recall result ID) or 'comment' (its free-text nature). With three parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description only partially covers the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Rate'), a resource ('knowledge result'), and the rating scale (1-5 with meaning). It also ties the tool to memory_recall, distinguishing it from siblings like memory_save or memory_recall itself. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it fits.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: 'Call this when a memory_recall result helped you solve a problem.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the positive trigger is strong enough for typical scenarios. No alternative tools are named, but the condition implies the context.

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