marrow_mark_outdated

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without explaining consequences: whether the change is reversible, whether it affects memory retrieval, if permissions are required, or what happens to the memory's lifecycle. This is a significant gap for a mutation-type 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?

The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient and free of fluff. It front-loads the core action. However, it lacks any structured breakdown (e.g., bullet points or examples) that could enhance clarity. Overly brief, but not padded, so it earns a 4.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the meaning of 'outdated', the expected effect on memory data, or any return values. Compare to the calibration example, this is far below the minimum viable description for a mutation 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 the parameters (id, note, actor) with brief descriptions like 'Memory ID', 'Audit note', and 'Actor name'. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 applies; no compensation is needed.

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The description 'Mark a memory as outdated' is a clear verb+resource statement. It clearly identifies the action (mark) and the resource (memory) and specifies the outcome (outdated state). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'marrow_supersede_memory' or 'marrow_update_memory', which could overlap in purpose. The specificity of 'outdated' helps, but explicit differentiation is missing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'marrow_update_memory' and 'marrow_supersede_memory' offer related functionality, but the description fails to clarify when 'mark as outdated' is the appropriate choice.

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