Archive an entry

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that nothing is physically deleted, that the entry remains restorable, that the action is audited in memory_events, and that it is unavailable on read-only connections. It also details idempotent behavior explicitly ('also when it already was') and describes the return shape including error conditions, all consistent with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then adds only necessary constraints, alternatives, return behavior, and availability. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy 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 a three-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens, what is preserved, how to restore it, when to prefer a sibling, what the return values mean, and connection limitations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning, mostly confirming that reason must not be empty and is stored in the audit log, which the schema also states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Archive (soft-delete) one entry'. It immediately distinguishes this from siblings by explaining the soft-delete semantics ('hide it from normal reads and search while keeping it, restorable with memory_restore'). An agent can tell this is not memory_write, memory_restore, or memory_get.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it for a fact that became wrong or obsolete'. It also names the preferred alternative and condition: 'to correct a fact, prefer memory_write on the same scope + name'. It additionally states an availability constraint: 'Not available on read-only connections.'

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