Archive a memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core non-destructive consequence—removed from search results but still accessible via includeArchived—and implies reversibility by contrasting with forgetting. It does not detail return values, idempotency, or behavior for already-archived memories, but it covers the key behavioral trait for this simple operation.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first states the action and immediate consequence, the second gives selection guidance. The most important behavioral detail is front-loaded before the alternative reference.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it explains what happens, how archived memories can still be found, and when to use this over the main alternative. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke the tool correctly is obviously missing.

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 100%, and the single 'id' parameter is already described as coming from memory_store or memory_list. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but since the schema fully documents it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Move a memory to the archived tree') and clearly states the effect: out of search results but kept and listed with includeArchived. It also differentiates from the sibling memory_forget, so an agent can distinguish the two at a glance.

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 explicitly names the alternative (memory_forget) and gives the condition for choosing this tool: 'Prefer this over forgetting when something may be needed again.' This gives the agent a clear decision rule for when to archive instead of delete.

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