mark_outdated

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that the old memory is not deleted (kept because it was true on its date) and that it carries an OUTDATED notice, plus that searches surface the new memory first. It omits whether the operation is idempotent or requires prior save_memory output, but the destructive/ordering semantics are clearly communicated.

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 behaviour and the tool-flow context are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then the args are documented compactly. Slightly more text than strictly needed for two parameters, but nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, precondition flow, and both params. The only gap is the absence of any note on failure cases (e.g. hub id not found or already outdated).

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 0% and both parameters are bare strings, so the description must supply meaning — which it does by defining old_id as 'the memory that is no longer current' and new_id as 'the memory that replaces it'. It does not specify id format or where to literally find them beyond the tool reference, so not a full 5.

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 and resource ('Flag one memory as corrected by another') plus the exact effect on the memory store. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings save_memory and search_memory by naming them as the upstream steps, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use context ('after save_memory listed candidates') and where the ids come from ('save_memory or a full search printed'). It does not state when NOT to use it or what to do if only one id is known, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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