Exclude a memory from future searches without deleting its content or history; launch-authorized writes required.
Exclude a memory from future searches without deleting its content or history. Requires launch-authorized writes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| reason | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds genuinely non-derivable context: that content and history are preserved despite the destructive hint, and that launch-authorized write permission is required. It stops short of describing effects on other queries or reversibility of the archival.
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, zero filler, with the behavioral crux ('without deleting its content or history') front-loaded. Nothing to trim.
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?
The mutation is safety-covered by annotations and the non-deletion guarantee is stated, but with a 0%-coverage schema and no output schema, the description leaves both parameters unexplained. Marginally adequate for a two-param tool, but an agent still guesses what to pass for 'reason'.
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% and the description explains neither parameter. It is unclear whether 'id' is the memory id and what 'reason' is used for, so the description fails to compensate for a fully undocumented two-parameter 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 ('Exclude') and resource ('a memory') plus a clarifying scope ('from future searches without deleting its content or history'). It implicitly separates itself from destructive deletes, but never names a sibling tool, so the differentiation is only partial.
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?
Gives one concrete prerequisite ('Requires launch-authorized writes'), which is real usage guidance, but says nothing about when to prefer this over memory_supersede or memory_feedback, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.