memory_suppress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the operation is non-destructive ('without deleting it'), but it does not explain whether the inhibition is reversible, what 'inhibit' actually changes about the memory, or how the 'amount' affects the behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, and a key constraint efficiently.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a schema with undocumented parameters, this description is too sparse. An agent would know what kind of memory to target but would not understand how the amount parameter behaves, whether suppression is reversible, or what the tool returns after execution.

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%, but the description adds no meaning for either parameter. memory_id is obvious but still undocumented, and amount is not explained at all, leaving its scale, units, and effect entirely unclear.

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 gives a specific verb ('inhibit') and a resource ('a stale or unhelpful memory'), and clarifies that suppression does not delete the memory. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling memory_supersede, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'stale or unhelpful memory' implies when the tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit comparison to siblings like memory_supersede or memory_feedback, and does not state when it should not be used.

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