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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the re-index side effect and the conflict behavior ('Refuses to overwrite a file that now occupies the same path'), which is exactly the kind of failure mode an agent needs to anticipate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key constraint. No padding or restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage on the lone parameter, the description only needs to convey behavior, which it does well including the conflict case. It stops short of noting permission requirements or what happens to references on re-index, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains the id format and points to memory_map. The description adds nothing about the id, 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 precise verb+resource ('Puts a retired memory back') plus the side effect of re-indexing, which cleanly separates it from the sibling retire_memory. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the 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 description implies the use case (undoing a retirement) but never says when to prefer this over siblings like save_memory or remember, nor states any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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