decay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the core effect (decay reduces importance for stale memories) but omits critical behavioral traits such as the dry_run default (default true means calls preview rather than apply), mutation side effects, and whether changes are reversible. The description adds some context but not enough for safe invocation.

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 tightly written sentences with zero redundancy. The main action and resource are front-loaded, followed by a clarifying consequence. Every word earns its place.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits when to use the tool, what a dry-run preview returns, whether the operation is destructive, and any return-value expectations. An agent would need to inspect the schema and still lack usage context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual value by linking 'time and access-based' to half_life_days and access_weight, but it does not detail individual parameters. The schema already carries the semantic weight, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific action ('Apply') and a clear resource ('memory importance scores'), and explains the mechanism ('time and access-based decay') with a concrete consequence. This distinguishes it from siblings like reinforce or forget without needing to inspect schemas.

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 description implies a maintenance use case ('memories not accessed recently will have reduced importance') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like forget or consolidate, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is implied, not explicit.

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