flag_sensitive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses significant side effects: removal of unsupported anchors/canon, atomic invalidation of dependent narratives, and the fact that `pin()` will require independent corroboration afterward. It also states that `reason` is required and logged. These are important behavioral traits beyond what a schema would 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?

The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently covers side effects and constraints without unnecessary fluff. It earns a 4 for being appropriately sized and structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (side effects, interaction with `pin()`), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly. However, it omits details such as the return value, error conditions, and how to obtain a valid `memory_id`. These gaps make it less than fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains `reason` ('required and logged'), but it does not describe `memory_id` at all beyond the tool's general purpose of marking an existing memory. The agent must infer that `memory_id` identifies the memory, but no format or acquisition method is given. This is a notable gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('mark'), a resource ('existing memory'), and a clear purpose ('as security-sensitive'), with examples of content types (identity / permissions / standing-instruction content). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like `pin()` and `promote` by focusing on retroactive sensitivity marking.

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 (retroactively marking sensitive memories) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. It does provide some contextual guidance by noting that `pin()` will require independent corroboration after flagging, which helps the agent understand downstream effects, but there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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