replace_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the old memory disappears from recall but retains its history, which is the key non-destructive/retirement behavior an agent needs. It still omits whether the operation is reversible, what happens if new_id doesn't exist, and permission requirements.

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 core action, and the parenthetical example earns its place by disambiguating the semantics. No filler.

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 no explanation, and the behavioral effect is covered. However, for a mutation-style tool with zero annotations and two undocumented required ID parameters, the description leaves an agent guessing about ID provenance and irreversibility.

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% and both required parameters are undocumented titles ('Old Id', 'New Id'). The description implies the old/new relationship but never states that these are memory identifiers, nor any format or validity constraints, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Retire an older memory') plus the causal condition that defines it ('because a newer one replaces it'), with a concrete example. This distinguishes it from siblings like mark_outdated, which retires a memory without a superseding replacement.

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 selection condition is clear and concrete: use this when a newer memory supersedes an older one, and the Postgres/MySQL example makes the scenario unambiguous. It does not explicitly name mark_outdated as the alternative for retiring without a replacement, nor state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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