memcp_retention_run

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

With no annotations, the description properly discloses that archiving compresses and moves stale items, while purging permanently deletes archived items past a threshold and logs metadata for audit. This provides key behavioral details beyond the bare operation.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief overview paragraph and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the actions, parameters, and outcomes. It could mention the retention period source or order of operations, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple boolean-parameter tool.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: archive defaults to true and 'Archive eligible items', purge defaults to false and 'Purge archived items past retention period'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 executes retention actions (archive and purge) and describes the effects. It distinguishes from siblings like memcp_retention_preview by indicating it actually runs the actions, though this differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 like memcp_retention_preview. There is no mention of prerequisites, recommended order of operations, or contexts where running retention is appropriate vs. not.

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