consolidate

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior, and it does so richly: deterministic/no-LLM execution, dedup merge rules (kep user/high-confidence/newer), episodic soft-deploy past retention period, user memories never cleared, and default dry_run=true meaning no DB writes. These are safety-critical behaviors an agent needs before invoking a mutating maintenance tool.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and policies, the second states the critical safety default (dry_run), and the third excludes the out-of-scope LLM phase. Every sentence 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?

For a moderate-complexity tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and safe defaults thoroughly, and it clarifies the Phase A/Phase B rapport. The remaining gaps are the structure of the dry-run report (no output schema exists) and an explicit statement that dry_run=false commits the changes — both minor but left to inference.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why episodic_retention_days exists and what it applies to (episodic soft-deletes past retention; user memories are never cleared) and by spelling out the dedup merge policy that makes dedup=true semantically meaningful.

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 names a concrete, specific operation: deterministic, non-LLM mechanical memory consolidation consisting of two distinct passes — content deduplication with an explicit merge policy (keep user/high-confident/newer) and expiry-based cleanup with soft-delete semantics. This clearly separates it from the sibling CRUD/link tools (save, search, list, update, forget, link), none of which perform batch maintenance.

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 provides clear context: this is the deterministic Phase A maintenance operation, and it explicitly draws a boundary by stating that LLM distillation (Phase B) is orchestrated separately by the host agent — an implicit when-not. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state conditions such as 'use forget_memory for single-record deletion instead,' so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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