Compact the memory store

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: what actually moves, that nothing is deleted and archived facts remain on disk and are still visible to memory_recall with include_archived, that restoration is an operator CLI action rather than a tool, and that read-only grants and the profile layer are untouched. The 'Nothing is deleted' line could read as tension with destructiveHint=true, but it is a clarification of what 'destructive' means here (index removal, recoverable archive) rather than a contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger and the action, and each subsequent clause adds a distinct, load-bearing fact (returns, recoverability, operator restore, scope exclusions, sibling differentiation). It is dense and parenthetical-heavy, which costs a little readability, but no sentence is 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?

With annotations, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent still needs: when to call, what happens under budget, what is returned ('every archived name with its type and description'), and that recovery is out-of-band. Nothing material is 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?

The description never mentions the single parameter, but schema description coverage is 100% and the schema's `reserve` description is unusually thorough, including the default formula and a worked numeric example. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 (compact/archive) and resource (the writable project memory store), names the exact trigger ('when memory_save was refused for budget'), and describes the selection rule ('stalest facts ... until a fact as large as the biggest one kept will fit'). It also pre-empts the nearest sibling by declaring 'It is not the pass for ... memory_dream.'

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?

Gives the precise usage sequence ('Call it after a budget refusal, then retry the save'), the negative case ('calling it under budget archives nothing and says so'), and the explicit alternative for a different problem ('that is memory_dream'). Nothing about when to reach for this tool is left to inference.

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