mark_outdated

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: the memory stops counting as current but retains history, i.e. a soft deprecation rather than a delete. It also implies a reason is mandatory. It stops short of saying whether the action is reversible, whether the record still appears in recall, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect before the alternative. The closing rationale ("so the next session knows the new fact, not just that the old one is wrong") is slightly expansive but justifies the routing advice rather than 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 effect plus the main alternative for a two-parameter mutation. Gaps remain around reversibility and how an outdated memory behaves in later recall or conflict resolution, which matters given the absence of annotations.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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It adds meaning for reason ("a short reason") and clarifies memory_id indirectly via the "replaces=<this id>" reference, but never says where the id comes from or what form it takes.

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 ("Mark a memory as no longer true") plus the scope of the effect ("stops counting as current but keeps its history"). That effect statement cleanly separates it from destructive siblings like replace_memory and from the forward-looking remember.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: if you know what's true now, use remember(..., replaces=<this id>) instead. It names the alternative tool, the parameter to use, and the condition that selects it, so the agent does not have to infer when this tool is the wrong choice.

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