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

Discloses that entries are kept (not deleted), filters combine as AND, and permission requirements. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds semantics about filter combination and permission. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, non-destructive nature, filter logic, permissions, and alternatives. No fluff. Effectively structured in four sentences covering all key aspects.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers usage scenario, permission, filter behavior, alternatives, and parameter guidance. It is complete enough for an AI agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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%, but description adds value beyond schema by explaining that filters (keys, tags, from_tier, older_than_hours) combine as AND, and explicitly states playbook_id must be a UUID or GUID. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: archiving memories from working or contextual tier to longterm. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning alternatives (delete_memory, promote_memory, consolidate_memories). The verb 'archive' plus the resource 'memories' is specific and unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use delete_memory for irreversible removal, promote_memory to move a key the other way, and consolidate_memories when you also want a parent summary.' Also mentions the permission requirement (memory:write or full). This provides clear decision guidance.

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