Oublier une mémoire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the memory is archived (not deleted) and remains in the base, with the effect of being hidden from search results. This goes beyond a simple 'forget' and clarifies the durability of the operation. However, it does not mention reversibility or potential side effects, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates both the action and its consequence. Every word adds value, and the parenthetical clarification is succinct. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does and the result of the action. The lack of explicit return-value documentation is acceptable for a simple side-effect operation, and the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', with a description 'Identifiant de la mémoire'. The tool description does not add any further semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 action (archive a memory) and specifies the exact scope: it no longer appears in searches but remains in the database. This is a specific verb plus resource and distinguishes the tool from deletion or permanent removal, which are plausible alternatives among sibling tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to archive a memory so it stops appearing in searches while retaining it in the database. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the behavior is distinct enough to guide an agent. It implies that this is not for permanent deletion, which is a useful implicit guideline.

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