(S)AGE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deprecates a memory, implying a destructive or mutative action, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what 'deprecate' entails (e.g., deletion, archiving, marking as inactive), or any permission requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage guidelines. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a destructive/mutative tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'deprecate' means operationally, the effects of the action, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it safely and effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (memory_id and reason). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Deprecate') and resource ('a memory by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like sage_remember or sage_recall by focusing on removal rather than creation or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., sage_forget vs. sage_reflect or sage_status), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool ('when a memory is no longer accurate or relevant'), which helps the agent understand the appropriate context. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for effective decision-making.

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