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

Annotations already flag this as a mutating, destructive operation, and the description adds real context beyond that: the memory is moved to _archived/ and the action is recoverable rather than a permanent delete. That is exactly the kind of disclosure that tempers the destructiveHint, though it does not say whether the id must exist or what happens if it doesn't. The description softens but does not contradict the destructive annotation, so no contradiction flag.

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?

One sentence, action and effect front-loaded, with the important recoverability caveat in a tight parenthetical. Nothing is padded and nothing essential is trimmed.

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, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: the argument, the effect, and reversibility. The only omission is how archived memories are restored or which tool does that, which is minor here.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself as 'Memory id to archive'. The description only restates 'by `id`' and adds no format, source, or lookup guidance, so the 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 (archive) on a specific resource (a memory) and names the effect (stops surfacing in recall). It is unambiguous against siblings like brain_recall or brain_pin without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'so it stops surfacing in recall' clearly conveys the context in which an agent would pick this tool, and the recoverability note signals it is the non-permanent option. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions or pointing to a restore/unpin alternative, so no explicit exclusion is given.

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