memshelf_rollup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description usefully reinforces the non-destructive contract ('nothing is deleted') and discloses the effect on INDEX ('shrinking INDEX'). However it never addresses the notable idempotency=false trait (what happens on repeat calls) or reversibility, so the added behavioral context is only partial.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the non-destructive guarantee. The trailing 'Not the answer to `index-bloat`' is compact but its cryptic reference to an external concept costs a little clarity for the space it saves.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the mutation semantics are largely covered by annotations. Still, the description leaves the agent without a clear picture of when this beats memshelf_shelve or memshelf_purge, and the ambiguous 'index-bloat' reference is not self-explanatory.

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 description clarifies the single most important argument — 'a digest-of-digests you write', i.e. the digest must be the caller's own synthesis — which matches the schema's digest contract. It adds nothing about date/until/slug/episode_ids/sections/display_title, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it archives episodes 'behind one digest-of-digests', names the affected artifact (INDEX) and clarifies scope ('a period's episodes'). An agent understands the operation, though differentiation from siblings like memshelf_shelve is only gestured at via the cryptic 'Not the answer to `index-bloat`' line.

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 phrase 'Not the answer to `index-bloat`' is an implicit exclusion, telling the agent this is the wrong tool for that problem, but it never names the correct alternative nor states a positive when-to-use condition. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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