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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds the key mechanic the annotations cannot convey: the effect is immediate on visibility and becomes permanent erasure after 7 days. That explains why a destructive hint applies to what sounds like a hide. It does not say whether the archive can be reversed within that window or what the call returns, leaving a small gap.

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, each carrying distinct information: the effect on retrieval, and the two-stage timing. The non-destructive framing is front-loaded exactly where an agent deciding between archive and delete would look.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential behavior — immediate hiding plus deferred permanent erasure. Only reversibility and confirmation behavior are unaddressed, which is minor.

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 both parameters (id, brain) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about id format or brain scoping. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 (hides) and resource (a memory) plus the immediate effect on search and recall, and contrasts with deletion in the same sentence. It stops short of naming memory_delete explicitly, so the routing signal is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

"Without deleting it" implies this is the soft-removal path versus memory_delete, and the 7-day window implies urgency semantics, but neither the alternative nor a when-to-use condition is stated outright. An agent must infer the choice between archive and delete.

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