Réautoriser une valeur mémoire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the immediate effect (removes a durable suppression) and the consequence (the next write can be evaluated again). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility of the unsuppression, permission requirements, or what happens to existing suppressed data.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the primary action, the second the resulting behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It explains the core action but omits parameter semantics, usage prerequisites, and edge cases. For a mutating tool, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation by an agent.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. While the parameter names (subject, predicate, object, project) suggest a memory triple structure, the description adds no explicit meaning, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of elaboration.

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 states a specific action: 'Retire une suppression durable' (removes a durable suppression), and the title clarifies 'Réautoriser une valeur mémoire' (re-authorize a memory value). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_forget or memory_purge, which perform suppression, by being their inverse.

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 phrase 'après une décision explicite' (after an explicit decision) implies the tool should be used when deliberately reversing a previous suppression. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it, leaving usage guidance only implied.

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