flag_stale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior: stale entries are down-ranked heavily. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or side effects beyond down-ranking. For a simple flag operation, this is a valuable disclosure but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrases or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return details), the description covers the essential behavior. It does not mention error conditions or permissions, but these are arguably not critical for such a lightweight operation, and the output schema likely covers response structure.

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 clarify the parameter semantics, but it makes no mention of entry_id at all. The meaning of the parameter is obvious from its name and schema, yet the description adds zero value, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('flag'), a resource ('a memory'), and a clear condition ('probably wrong now, needs re-check'), along with the effect ('down-ranked heavily'). This distinguishes it from siblings like mark_superseded, which implies a different semantics (superseded vs. stale).

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?

It implies when to use (when a memory is probably wrong and needs re-check) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like mark_superseded or verify_memory. No 'when not to use' guidance is given, so the agent must infer the boundaries from the phrasing.

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