Archive a memory by soft-deleting it, excluding it from default searches and lists while preserving content and logging the reason for audit.
Archive a memory (soft delete -- content is kept, just excluded from default search/list).
A reason is recorded as a status-change audit entry, without touching
the content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| superseded_by | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that content is preserved, that only default search/list is affected, and that a reason is written as a status-change audit entry without modifying content. This is genuinely behavior-relevant. It stops short of 5 by not stating reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens on the response side.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its key property (soft delete), with the secondary 'reason' detail following. 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?
Adequate for a small 3-param tool with no output schema: the destructive-vs-non-destructive distinction is covered. However, with 0% param coverage and no annotations, the undocumented uid and superseded_by semantics leave the definition incomplete for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'reason' (recorded as an audit entry, content untouched), which is real added meaning, but says nothing about 'uid' or 'superseded_by', leaving two of three params unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb (archive) and resource (a memory) with the critical clarification that it is a soft delete where content is kept. The distinguishing detail from purge_memory is implied by 'soft delete' but the description never names that sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Implies the use case (excluding a memory from default search/list without destroying it), which usefully contrasts with hard deletion, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not and never routes the agent between forget, purge_memory, or edit_memory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.