memory_admin

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden but only says 'single dispatch' and lists ops. It does not disclose destructive nature of ops like dedup_sweep or roi_gc, nor does it describe side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core concept. Efficient and clear.

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?

Despite simple schema, the tool has 21 sub-ops with varying behavior. No output schema. Description is too brief to cover what the tool returns or how each op behaves, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds minimal value beyond examples for the 'op' parameter. It does not explain the purpose or behavior of each op, nor groups them. Baseline is 3 due to schema coverage, but description is too vague.

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 it is a single dispatch for all memory admin/maintenance ops, listing examples. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_get, memory_save, etc., which handle regular memory 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 implies usage for admin/maintenance ops but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites.

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