unsuppress_memories

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

The description discloses the basic effect (memories become retrievable again) but nothing more. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency, yet it omits any details about reversibility, side effects, required permissions, or return 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 wasted words. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it exceptionally concise.

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 parameter, the description conveys the core operation but omits any context about expected inputs, outputs, errors, or state changes. The lack of annotations and output schema means the description alone is too sparse for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 sole parameter 'memory_ids' is not explicitly described in the description, but the phrase 'suppressed memories' implies that the IDs refer to those memories. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema (array of strings), but it lacks explicit detail about format or constraints.

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 ('Restore') and the target resource ('suppressed memories'), with the goal 'to retrieval'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like suppress_memories and restore, since it specifically addresses the reverse operation on suppressed memories.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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