Consolidate and forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behaviors: merging, forgetting contradicted items, and decaying stale memories, which are meaningful side effects. However, it does not explicitly state irreversibility or whether a summary is returned, though the maintenance nature is clear.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Runs the maintenance pass') before elaborating on the effects. No wasted words.

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 maintenance tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main operations well, but omits any return value or post-condition details (e.g., whether the operation is atomic, how success is reported). Given the lack of annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 does not mention the userId parameter at all, and the schema provides no description for it (0% coverage). Since userId is self-explanatory, the parameter is understandable, but the tool description adds no guidance on how this parameter scopes the maintenance (e.g., per-user memory isolation).

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 clearly states the tool runs a maintenance pass with specific effects: merging related memories, discarding contradicted items, and decaying stale low-importance memories. It distinguishes from siblings (write/search/recall) by focusing on consolidation and forgetting. The verb 'runs' plus resource 'memories' makes the purpose explicit.

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 explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives is provided. The description implies this is the maintenance action, and the title/name suggest forgetting, but it doesn't compare against memory_write or memory_search. Users must infer from the tool name that this is for cleanup.

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