mimir_decay

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining auto-archiving of low-score entities and the effect on recall results. There is no contradiction with 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?

Two sentences efficiently front-load the main action and then provide usage and consequence. Every sentence is valuable, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear destructive side effect) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, and behavioral outcomes.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description's baseline is 4. It adds no parameter information because none is needed, which is appropriate.

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 recalculates Ebbinghaus decay scores and auto-archives fully decayed entities, specifying both the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mimir_forget or mimir_purge by its specific decay recalculation purpose.

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 advises running periodically to keep memory fresh, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare alternatives among siblings, so guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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