ck_memory_archive

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

Discloses it is a write operation that marks records as archived (not deleted) and affects search results. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden well. Minor lack of info on reversibility, but acceptable for this simple action.

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 efficient sentences with no unnecessary words. Purpose is front-loaded, alternatives and context follow logically.

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?

Covers purpose, effect on search, and when to use. No output schema, but the expected result (record archived) is implied. Could mention idempotency or reversibility, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Adds meaning for the required 'memory_id' parameter, explaining it is an integer from specific tools. Schema has 67% coverage; description compensates by clarifying the key parameter. Other parameters have schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states what the tool does: 'Archive a memory record so it is excluded from future ck_memory_search results.' Distinguishes from siblings by naming the alternative tool for updating records.

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?

Explicitly provides use cases: 'Use when a record is stale, superseded by a newer decision, or contains information that should no longer guide future agents.' Also includes a clear alternative: 'To update a record's content instead of archiving it, call ck_memory_record again.'

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