forget_all

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

The description discloses atomicity: 'All memories are archived or none — partial failure rolls back the entire operation.' It also explains post-action behavior: report each archived ID and note restorability. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits.

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?

The description is concise at 4 sentences, front-loading purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: purpose, efficiency, atomicity, confirmation requirement, and post-action steps. No unnecessary content.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage conditions, behavioral guarantees, and post-action reporting. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for items, id, and reason. The description does not add further semantic detail beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: batch archive multiple memories at once. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'forget' by specifying that it is for 2 or more memories, making the purpose clear and unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidelines: 'use this when you have 2 or more confirmed memories to archive at once.' It also specifies when not to use it (only after explicit user confirmation) and contrasts with the alternative (multiple forget calls), giving complete usage guidance.

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