memory_propose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: proposals are invisible to recall, memory_list, find_similar, and the boot digest; validation is deferred to ratify time; and drafts may be rough. This gives the agent an accurate model of the tool's side effects and lifecycle.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core staging action, the key invisibility behavior, and the intended usage scenario. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient behavioral and lifecycle context. The distinction between proposed and ratified memory is fully explained, and the deferred validation note covers the most important edge consideration.

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 every parameter. The description adds contextual value around the proposal workflow but does not need to repeat parameter meanings; the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Stage a DRAFT memory in the capture-propose queue' — and clearly distinguishes proposals from authored memories by listing what they are invisible to. This lets an agent immediately tell it apart from memory_ratify, memory_reject, and similar tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when a background lane wants to suggest a write without committing it, leaving ratification to a human or Art. It does not name the alternative tools for direct memory creation, but the contrast with ratified/canon memory is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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