Tidy the Memory list

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining exactly what gets removed, that the no-arg call makes no changes, that confirm:true applies via the app's typed writers, and that deletes carry tombstones to stay deleted across devices. It even discloses the small model call and credit cost.

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 information-dense but not bloated; every clause contributes something. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains the preview/apply flow and consequences. The first sentence is long with many serial clauses, but all are relevant and the structure remains readable.

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 destructive, multi-step tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is cleaned, how to preview safely, how to apply, the deletion semantics, and the cost/resource implications. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

The single boolean parameter confirm is already fully documented in the schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the meaning by tying 'no argument' to the proposal-only mode and 'confirm:true' to applying the changes, adding practical context beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Clean up and consolidate the workspace Memory') and details exactly what that means: dropping product-behavior entries, phone numbers, emails, and merging near-duplicate facts. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_memory, remember, and forget.

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 gives explicit call patterns: call with no argument to preview the proposal, then call again with confirm:true to apply. It clearly explains the safe preview-first workflow, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives such as forget for targeted deletion.

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