agentmem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the key behavioral trait ('excluded from search/recall but kept for history'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, both of which earn their place. The first sentence states the action and effect, while the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted language or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (deprecation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the behavioral effect and usage context. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens to deprecated memories long-term or if deprecation is reversible, which would help an agent understand the full implications.

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 both parameters (id and reason) adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Mark a memory as deprecated') and resource ('memory'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_memory (removal) or update_memory (modification). It explains the effect ('excluded from search/recall but kept for history'), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use when a rule or fact is no longer true'), providing clear context for its application. This distinguishes it from alternatives like delete_memory (permanent removal) or supersede_memory (replacement), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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