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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the real precondition — human instruction and no replacement — which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It still does not say whether retirement is reversible, what happens to the retired memory, or what the person sees afterwards.

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, zero filler, with the eligibility condition front-loaded and the two routing alternatives packed into the second sentence.

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 four-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the decisive questions: who must authorise it, when it is the wrong tool, and where to go instead. The remaining gap is what retirement actually does to the memory and whether it can be undone, which matters for a destructive operation.

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 all four parameters including the decided_by_human constraint and the #handle convention are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, which is the baseline case.

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 plus a narrowly qualified resource ('Retire a SANCTIONED memory'), and immediately names two sibling tools that cover the neighbouring cases, so an agent can separate this from arroway_remember and arroway_withdraw 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('the person told you to remove it and nothing replaces it') and two explicit alternatives with their selecting conditions: a corrected version routes to arroway_remember supersedes_id, an agent's own pending proposal routes to arroway_withdraw.

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