demote_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the chunk is not deleted but flagged, and that it no longer appears in recall results. It also mentions optional traceability via 'superseded_by'. However, it does not detail reversibility or side effects on other functions, which would elevate transparency further.

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 three sentences with no filler. First sentence states action and resource, second explains the behavioral effect (flagging vs deletion), third gives usage context and mentions optional linking. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 there is no output schema and the operation is simple (deprecation with side effect of hiding from recall), the description covers the main behavioral outcome. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating the reversal or persistence of the chunk, but it is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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 provides baseline meaning for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'superseded_by' ('link to replacement chunk for traceability') and indicating that 'deprecated_at' defaults to now. This contextualizes the optional parameters beyond the schema.

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 action ('deprecate'), the resource ('long-term memory chunk in demo.marsvault_chunks'), and distinguishes it from deletion by explaining it flags the chunk instead. This fully differentiates it from sibling tools like soft_forget or delete operations.

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?

The description provides explicit context for when to use this tool ('when information becomes incorrect, irrelevant, or is replaced by newer knowledge') and explains the core behavioral difference (not deleted, flagged). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool names, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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