Restore a quarantined record to active memory, recording the actor and reason for release.
A human decision that a quarantined record is a memory after all: it returns to recall and keeps who released it and why.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| actor | Yes | ||
| reason | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description itself must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the record changes state ('returns to recall') and that the identity and rationale of the releaser are persisted ('keeps who released it and why'). This gives the agent a concrete sense of side effects without contradicting anything.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs in the condition, the primary action, and the audit trail in an elegant, non-redundant way. Every clause contributes meaning and there is 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 simple 3-parameter action with no output schema, the description adequately specifies the operation and the required semantics. However, it does not mention return value/error behavior, and the assumption that the record is currently quarantined is only implicit rather than stated as a prerequisite.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does convey the meaning of 'actor' (who released it) and 'reason' (why) via their everyday counterparts, but it does not explicitly map the required 'id' parameter to 'quarantined record' or state whether it is the record's identifier. This leaves a moderate gap.
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 names a specific action — releasing a quarantined record — and its outcome: returning it to recall while keeping the releaser and reason. This is a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like remember or archive_actions by focusing on transitions from quarantine.
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 clearly frames the context: use a human decision that a quarantined record is actually a memory. This is a strong precondition and a clear signal of when to apply the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the situational trigger is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.