suppress_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers key behavior: non-destructive ('traces stay in the store'), effect on recall ('stop surfacing in recall'), and reversibility ('until unsuppressed'). It omits potential side effects but provides the essential behavioral contract.

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 sentence of 19 words, front-loaded with the action verb 'block' and free of filler. Every phrase earns its place, delivering purpose, behavior, and reversibility 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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, explaining the operation and its reversible nature. It could mention the counterpart tool 'unsuppress_memories' or expected return type, but the core functionality is well covered.

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 0% and the description only mentions 'memories' generically, without explaining what memory_ids refer to, where they come from, or any constraints. The schema provides type info only, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 identifies the action ('Temporarily block memories from retrieval') and the resource ('memories'), plus the reversible scope ('until unsuppressed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'forget' (likely permanent) and 'unsuppress_memories' (the opposite operation).

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 word 'temporarily' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, implying a reversible suppression use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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