clean_agent_memory

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds real value with 'permanently deleted' and 'Returns the count of entries removed', but omits whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires elevated auth, or what happens to entries with no TTL.

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, with no filler. There is mild redundancy between the first sentence ('Remove all expired...') and the second ('Entries with a TTL that has elapsed'), though the second adds the permanence detail.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the eligibility criteria, the irreversibility, and the return value. Only marginal context, such as what 'agent memory' covers versus agent notes, is left implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description could add about parameter meaning. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 specific verb and resource ('Remove all expired agent memory entries') and scopes it precisely to TTL-expired entries. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like delete_agent_note or prune_design_render_cache, though it never explicitly names a boundary against them.

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 trigger condition (entries whose TTL has elapsed) is stated, so an agent can infer when the tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use note, and no reference to alternative sibling tools for other cleanup tasks.

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