Retire a memory by marking it no longer true with a short reason. It stops appearing in recall while preserving its history and rationale.
Mark a memory as no longer true, with a short reason. It stops showing up in recall but keeps its history, so you can still see what it said and why it was retired.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| memory_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important behavior: the memory disappears from recall while its history and the retirement reason remain visible. That is exactly the state semantics an agent needs for a mutation. It does not cover reversibility (can a mark be undone?), permissions, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence. Every clause carries information (action, scope, recall effect, history retention, rationale for the retained reason) with no padding.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core state transition and what is preserved. The main remaining gap is the undocumented parameters and unstated failure/undo behavior for a mutation tool with no annotations.
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% — neither memory_id nor reason has any description. The description partially compensates by framing the target as "a memory" and characterizing reason as "a short reason," giving a hint about length and intent. It adds no format, ID convention, or constraint detail for memory_id, so the gap is only partly closed.
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+resource+target state: "Mark a memory as no longer true." The effect clause ("stops showing up in recall but keeps its history") cleanly separates it from a hard delete or from replace_memory, which is useful for an agent scanning siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear but not fully 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?
Usage is implied by the state change described (memory is no longer true), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over replace_memory (correct the content) or confirm_memory (re-affirm), and no statement of preconditions such as the memory needing to exist. An agent can infer the case but is not routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.