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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, but the description supplies the context those hints cannot: the retirement is reversible, nothing is deleted, and the effect is immediate on recall and search for every memory type. It also discloses a non-obvious side effect (retiring a correction undoes its replaces) that no annotation or schema field could convey.

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?

Front-loads the core effect and keeps every sentence functional, with no filler. It is dense and slightly long, and the trailing note about corrections undoing replaces, while valuable, reads as an appended caveat rather than integrated guidance.

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?

Covers the full decision surface for a one-parameter mutation tool: how to get the id, what happens per memory type, reversibility, the undo path, and the correct sibling for adjacent intents. With an output schema present, no return-value explanation is needed, so nothing material is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes slightly beyond by telling the agent where to obtain an id: the receipt of the save that wrote it, or memory_map with words from the memory. This overlaps the schema's own id description, so the added value is modest rather than substantial.

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 (retire a memory) and immediately enumerates what that means for each memory kind: note file moved, daily-log entry extracted, fact removed from reads, all removed from search. That level of specificity makes it impossible to confuse with restore_memory, remember, or search siblings.

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 gating condition ('use only when the owner asks to forget something') and names the alternatives with their conditions: restore_memory to undo, remember to correct a wrong fact, remember to correct an outdated note. It even covers the subtle case where retiring a correction re-surfaces the memory it replaced.

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