memory_reinstate

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: backend constraint ('PostgreSQL only'), an auth requirement ('requires a named principal'), a precondition ('exact retirement preimage'), and explicit refusal/scope behavior ('Refuses trace-invalidated entries and never changes derived cortex'). These go well beyond the destructive/idempotent hints the annotations already carry.

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?

Four dense sentences with the core verb+resource front-loaded and each clause carrying distinct information (backend, auth, precondition, refusal behavior, retry). No filler, though it is slightly more compact-packing than a maximal 5 might demand.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers auth needs, preconditions, refusal cases, mutation scope, and retry semantics; return values are appropriately left to the output schema. A minor gap is that the resulting state transition after reinstatement is only implied.

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 9 parameters in detail. The description adds only indirect context ('by durable ID', 'same UUID', 'exact retirement preimage'), which reinforces but does not extend what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Reinstate one reviewed retired entry by durable ID' — which distinguishes it from the opposite operation (memory_supersede) and from memory_reinforce/memory_forget. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain (reinstating a reviewed retired entry) and by the retry clause 'Retry an uncertain call with the same UUID and inputs.' However, there is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so guidance is only at the implied level.

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