tool_decay_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the decay mechanism and that low-quality memories are not deleted but can be awakened. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, irreversibility, or whether it affects persistent storage, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured and efficient: it starts with the main purpose, explains the mechanism, gives usage advice, and then details the parameters in a bulleted format. Every sentence adds value with no superfluous content.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage guidelines, and parameters. It does not mention return values (likely none), but this is acceptable given the tool's side-effect nature. Minor gap: no mention of whether the tool returns a status or confirmation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains decay_rate as a coefficient multiplying memory quality (default 0.95) and batch_size as the upper limit per round (default 100). This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields, though it could provide more detail on valid ranges.

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 executes a round of memory quality decay (forgetting mechanism). It explains that low-quality memories sink but are not deleted, and can be awakened later. This distinct purpose differentiates it from siblings like store, recall, or link.

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 explicitly advises periodic invocation (e.g., every 24 hours or every 100 dialogues) rather than each dialogue. It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use.

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