memory_mark_obsolete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the post-condition: the memory is kept for audit and hidden from active recall. However, it does not mention reversibility or side effects, which would have made it more complete.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, efficiently communicating the action and consequence.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does and the behavioral outcome. No additional context is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the memory_id parameter. However, the single parameter is self-explanatory given the tool name and description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the parameter is trivially clear, so a baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Mark a repo memory obsolete') and the resource (repo memory). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying the outcome: 'kept for audit, hidden from active recall.' This is specific 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 implies when to use this tool (when a memory should no longer be actively used but must be retained for audit). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to differentiate from memory_update or memory_rebind.

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