memory_alias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is a write/mutation tool. It says nothing about persistence scope, whether an existing mapping is overwritten, what happens on duplicate canonical/alias pairs, or required permissions — only the intended benefit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb first, purpose second, example last. Nothing is redundant, though the example could be dropped without loss of meaning for an agent.

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 an annotation-free mutation tool with no output schema, the definition should describe at minimum whether the mapping persists across memory_recall and whether conflicts overwrite. Both are missing, leaving the agent unable to predict side effects of the call.

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%: canonical (标准词) and alias (同义词) are already documented in the schema. The description's 香菜 ↔ 芫荽 example reinforces the direction of the mapping but adds no constraints (length, normalization, direction rule) beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 concrete verb (添加/add) plus resource (同义词映射/synonym mapping) and illustrates it with a cilantro↔coriander example, so the effect is unambiguous. No sibling in the list handles aliases, so no differentiation is strictly needed, but the description never explicitly says that.

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 clause 让召回不漏 ('so recall doesn't miss') hints at the motivating use case (improving memory_recall coverage), which is genuine implied guidance. It does not state when to prefer this over memory_remember/memory_update, nor any exclusion such as when an alias already exists.

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