Revive an archived memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a state change (archived to active) but does not specify whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the memory is already active, whether it is reversible, or any potential side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and result, making it immediately clear. For a tool with only one parameter and no complexity, this is appropriately sized.

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 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient but lacks important operational context. It does not mention error conditions, idempotency, or prerequisites (e.g., that the memory must already be archived). An agent could call it correctly based on the schema, but would benefit from a note about failure cases or state constraints.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the single 'id' parameter with a description indicating it comes from memory_store or memory_list. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra context about the parameter is needed, as the schema is fully descriptive.

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 clear verb ('bring back') and specific resource ('archived memory') plus the result ('active search'). It clearly indicates the tool unarchives a memory, but it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like memory_archive (which archives) or memory_update (which could modify status). However, the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer its role among the sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that this should be used when a memory needs to become searchable again, or that memory_archive is the inverse. The description simply states the action without context on conditions or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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