Manage stored memories

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

The annotations already establish non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds important context beyond them: forget is a reversible soft-delete, discard_pending permanently drops an unconfirmed entry, and the reversibility exception is disclosed rather than hidden.

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?

The description is front-loaded and most sentences earn their place by mapping actions and alternatives. The final sentence repeats the discard_pending exception already stated, though it usefully explains the annotation choice.

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 five-action lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description covers every action, the id requirement, reversibility, permanence, and the relevant sibling alternative. An agent has enough information to choose and invoke the correct action.

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 the id and action parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces that entries are addressed by id or queue state, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: inspect or change the lifecycle of a stored memory, addressed by id or queue state. It also enumerates the concrete lifecycle actions and distinguishes the tool from the sibling recall tool.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: list_pending for items awaiting approval, get_by_id for reading one entry, forget/restore for reversible soft-delete, discard_pending for permanent removal, and recall for topic-based search of confirmed memory. The alternatives and selection conditions are clear.

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