Archive or restore a memory

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally; the description earns credit for adding the crucial behavioral fact that the operation is reversible via restore=true with the same ID, and that archived items drop out of briefs and recall. It does not address behavior when the ID is unknown or invalid.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: effect, reversibility, and trigger. The most important information (what it does and its effect) is front-loaded with no filler.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main path and the undo path, but never explains what scope controls or what happens if the ID doesn't resolve. An agent could call it correctly on the happy path but would guess on scope.

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 67%: id and restore are documented in the schema, and the description usefully reinforces the restore semantics. However, the scope parameter (all/project/global) is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a required piece of invocation semantics unaddressed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Archive a memory by ID") plus the observable effect ("stops appearing in briefs and recall"), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall and remember. It is clear about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives to route away from.

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?

"Use when a decision is superseded or a note is wrong" gives a concrete trigger condition, and the restore sentence explains the reverse path. There is no explicit statement of when *not* to use it (e.g. when to prefer remember or recall), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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