Govern Memory

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: the operation is auditable, requires explicit confirmation and reason for destructive actions, and never deletes raw archive data. This adds significant context beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary actions, followed by usage prerequisites and a critical scope limitation. No wasted words.

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 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core workflow and safety constraints. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need to be explained. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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 schema already covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds meaning to key parameters like dry_run (preview affected IDs) and confirm_destructive (required for non-dry-run mutations), plus the rationale for 'reason'. This goes beyond the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 tool's function with specific verbs: 'delete, reject, or mark curated memories stale.' It identifies the resource (curated memories) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_memory or search.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance: use dry_run=true first to preview, and non-dry-run mutations require confirm_destructive=true and an explicit reason. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context and prerequisites are well-defined.

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