memoryguard_accept_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the important behavior: it writes to shared memory and records a DecisionEvent with action=accept_extract. This is explicit mutation disclosure beyond the verb 'accept', though it does not cover permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and effect, the second states the required inputs. It is front-loaded and every clause contributes.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main effect, the recorded event, and the required inputs. It leaves return values and failure modes unspecified, but the schema covers parameter details well.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates the extract_id prerequisite and adds the qualifier 'explicit' to candidate_ids, but provides only slightly more meaning than the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Accept extracted memory candidates'), the mechanism ('through GovernanceEngine'), and the concrete outcome ('write them to shared memory' plus a DecisionEvent). This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic memory_write or the extract_memories preview tool.

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 precondition: extract_id must come from a prior extract_memories call and candidate_ids must be explicitly provided. This implies the intended workflow phase, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools to exclude.

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