memory_alias_add

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: input is lowercased, alias chains are flattened (transitive resolution), and re-adding an alias silently re-points rather than erroring — which is the detail that explains the destructive hint.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action and an example, then the behavioral caveats, then the sibling pointer. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers action, normalization, re-point semantics, and verification via a sibling. Return/confirmation behavior is left implicit but is minor for this tool.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics the schema lacks: the alias value is normalized to lowercase and alias chains are collapsed. It does not clarify whether the canonical value is normalized the same way, leaving a minor gap.

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 a specific verb+resource (fold a surface form into a canonical entity) with a concrete bilingual example that removes ambiguity. It also names the sibling memory_alias_list, so an agent can separate this write-side tool from the read-side listing tool without opening either schema.

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?

"so recall treats them as one" gives the condition that motivates using this tool, and "See memory_alias_list" routes the agent to the complementary sibling for inspection. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. alias vs. creating a separate entity), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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