memory_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — this is a manual override that bypasses the natural resolution path — which is genuinely useful. However it omits reversibility, whether the mark is permanent, permission/auth needs, and any confirmation of what state change occurs; for a mutation tool these gaps keep it at adequate rather than strong.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the caution immediately following. Nothing is buried or redundant.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the caution/routing signal, which is the essential part. It still leaves the agent guessing about the effect of the call (irreversibility, what the memory looks like afterward, error cases for invalid ids), so it is adequate but not 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?

There is one parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage ('记忆 id'), so the schema already handles the semantics. The description implies the id names the memory being resolved but adds no format, validation, or failure-mode guidance beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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-plus-resource: it force-marks a given memory ('心结', via id) as resolved. The '人工强制' qualifier implicitly contrasts with the natural-decay path used elsewhere, though no sibling tool is named explicitly. An agent can tell what it does, but must infer which sibling normally handles resolution.

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?

Explicitly says '慎用' (use with caution) and states the normal case — resolution should emerge naturally from time/expression/state evidence — which functions as a clear when-not-to-use condition. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or defining what 'evidence-based' resolution looks like operationally.

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