Rejects a proposed memory entry while retaining its content and history. Prevents undesired changes from being written into the project's permanent memory.
所有者明确拒绝某条提案后调用，保留内容和历史，不改写原生记忆。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | ||
| directory | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose important traits: content and history are preserved, and native memory is not rewritten, suggesting a non-destructive rejection operation. However, it does not explain what state actually changes, whether the rejection is reversible, or what happens to the entry/proposal afterwards.
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 that front-loads the trigger condition and then states the key behavioral constraint. There is no filler or redundancy.
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, no output schema, and sibling tools with overlapping semantics like memory_retract and memory_resolve, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the proposal lifecycle, how directory and entry_id are used, what the result will be, or how this tool differs from alternatives. The non-destructive note is useful but insufficient for confident invocation.
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 the description mentions neither directory nor entry_id, so it adds no parameter-level meaning. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description still fails to explain how each parameter relates to the rejection operation.
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 specifies that this tool is invoked when the owner explicitly rejects a proposal and indicates a non-destructive effect: preserving content/history and not rewriting native memory. This makes the purpose reasonably clear. It stops short of a 5 because it lacks an explicit operative verb such as 'mark as rejected' and does not contrast itself with sibling tools.
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?
A clear trigger condition is stated: call this after the owner explicitly rejects a proposal. The description does not mention exclusions or point to alternatives like memory_retract or memory_resolve, but the given usage context is specific enough to guide an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.