memory_wake

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 say what state change occurs (dormant to active), whether the operation is reversible (the counterpart memory_sleep exists), what happens if the id refers to a memory that is not dormant, or whether it requires confirmation, which are all material for a mutation tool.

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 short sentence with no padding, and the key action is front-loaded. It is efficient, albeit partly because it omits the information it should contain.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it says neither what the call returns, nor how failure when the memory is not dormant is signalled, nor how it relates to memory_sleep and memory_recall.

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 and its schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents `id`. The description adds no further meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 concrete verb and resource: manually reviving a dormant memory ('想起来' / recall). It is more than a restatement of the name, but it does not distinguish this operation from the sibling memory_recall tool, which presumably covers the ordinary recall path, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.

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 word '手动' (manually) implies a contrast with an automatic mechanism, but the description never states when an agent should call memory_wake rather than memory_recall or memory_pin, nor does it give preconditions such as the memory having to be dormant first.

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