memory_admin

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions deletion and idempotent extraction in parameter descriptions, but the main description omits side effects, authorization requirements, or whether actions are read-only. The term 'administrative' is vague.

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, short sentence that front-loads the key concept 'Administrative operations'. It is efficient, though the list after the colon could be better structured for readability.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 7 actions) and the existence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not provide a high-level overview of how the actions interrelate or the typical usage workflow, leaving gaps that the schema alone must fill.

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 input schema already documents all parameters and their semantics (e.g., action enum values). The main description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the categories, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Administrative operations' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like recall_memories and store_memory. However, it lists multiple categories (stats, background jobs, etc.) rather than a single verb+resource, making the purpose broad but distinguishable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or how to choose among the many actions. Users must infer from the tool name and enum values.

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