memory.deprecate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it fails entirely. It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the memory becomes hidden or unavailable), reversibility, permissions needed, or what "DEPRECATES" refers to. The agent cannot infer the consequences of calling this tool.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but the unclear language and probable grammatical errors (e.g., "Depreca", "liga DEPRECATES") undermine its effectiveness. Brevity does not excuse lack of clarity.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide a complete picture, but it omits effects, return values, and behavioral nuances. The tool's purpose is only vaguely conveyed, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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, but it only loosely hints that "substituta" relates to the replaced_by parameter. The rationale parameter and memory_id are not elaborated upon. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema field titles.

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 uses non-standard language ("Depreca", "DEPRECATES") and fails to clearly state that the tool marks a memory as deprecated. The mention of linking to a substitute is vague, and no differentiation from sibling tools like memory.upsert or memory.consolidate is provided.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when it would be inappropriate. The description does not mention any prerequisites, constraints, or context for deprecation.

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