Marks a stored memory item as incorrect and suspends it along with everything derived from it. Use this with the item ID and reason to prevent bad knowledge from spreading.
Mark a memory item as wrong. It and everything derived from it is suspended.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important cascading effect that derived items are also suspended. However, it leaves key behavioral questions open: whether suspension is reversible, whether it requires special authorization, and whether 'suspended' means deleted or merely flagged.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words; the consequential cascade behavior is stated immediately after the core action.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the important derived-item consequence, but omits reversibility, permission requirements, and any indication of what the caller gets back.
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 0%, so both 'id' and 'reason' are undocumented in structured fields and the description adds nothing about them. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify what identifier format is expected or how the reason is used.
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 ('Mark ... as wrong') and resource ('a memory item'), which is clearly distinct from the recall/propose/report_outcome siblings. It does not explicitly name how it differs from those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus memory_report_outcome or the other siblings, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.