flag_stale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the memory is not deleted, remains recoverable, and becomes annotated in recall. However, it does not detail reversibility, exact recall visibility, or failure modes, leaving minor gaps.

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 leads with a one-sentence summary that captures the core behavior, then provides terse argument descriptions in a structured Args block. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple operation, the description covers operation semantics and all parameters. It does not explain exact recall behavior or how to revert the flag, but with an output schema present and focused args, the description is highly complete for its complexity.

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 fully compensate. It explains every parameter: memory_id as the target, reason as justification for staleness, and superseded_by as the replacing memory if any. This is complete and adds clear meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Mark a memory as stale", and adds crucial scope with "kept and recoverable, but annotated in recall" which clearly distinguishes it from delete_memory and update_memory. The purpose is unambiguous and operationally specific.

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 effect "kept and recoverable" implies use for memories that should be preserved but deprioritized, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like delete_memory or update_memory. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving usage context to be inferred.

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