hb_mem_consolidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: a mutation happens only when dry_run=false, otherwise it is a preview, and that entries get pruned. It stops short of stating irreversibility, whether pruning is permanent, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the dry_run safety note is appended efficiently. The nested parenthetical is slightly dense but 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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the dry-run safety valve, and the schema fully documents parameters. Missing only irreversibility/scope caveats about what pruning destroys.

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 the schema already documents decay, dry_run, agent_id, and min_confidence with bounds and defaults. The description only restates the dry_run semantics, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Decay memory confidence and prune low-confidence entries.' An agent can tell this is a memory-maintenance operation distinct from hb_mem_store or hb_mem_merge. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling (hb_mem_merge), which also mutates memory state.

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 parenthetical '(dry_run previews; dry_run=false applies)' tells the agent how to invoke it safely, implying usage context. But it never states when this tool should be chosen over hb_mem_merge or other memory siblings, nor any prerequisites.

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