decay_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the mutation target (beliefs) and the return shape (updated count), but says nothing about reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects of decaying beliefs, which an agent running a batch mutation would want.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence largely duplicates the schema's project description, which is a minor redundancy but not bloat.

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 zero-required-parameter batch mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes and what is returned. However, it omits the mathematical effect of decay_factor and any warning about modifying many beliefs at once, leaving notable gaps.

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 coverage is 50%: project is fully documented in the schema (and the description merely repeats it), while decay_factor has no explanation anywhere. The description fails to compensate for the gap, e.g., it never explains what decay_factor does or that 1 means no decay.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Apply time decay to beliefs') and states the return value (count of updated beliefs). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, sweep_expired_defeated, so an agent must still infer which sweep applies.

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 explains the scoping behavior of the optional project argument but gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives in the belief-maintenance family (e.g., sweep_expired_defeated). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or timing cues, leaving usage entirely inferred.

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