Dismiss a memory

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: nothing is erased, the action is fully reversible via restore_memory, a confirmation is returned, an already-dismissed item is reported rather than failing, and an unknown id produces an error. This corroborates and enriches idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false rather than restating them.

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 tight sentences; the non-destructive, reversible nature is front-loaded before the usage hint and the return behavior, so the most decision-relevant fact comes first.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers return semantics (confirmation, already-dismissed case, error case) and the reversibility path, which is everything an agent needs to call this three-parameter mutation safely.

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 description coverage is 100%, so id, type and reason are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and the truncation rule. The description restates the four item kinds but adds no syntax, format, or id-provenance guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (hide) plus the exact resource scope (memory, observation, fact or episode) and explicitly contrasts with deletion, which distinguishes it from restore_memory and from any hard-delete behavior an agent might assume.

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?

"Use it for stale or wrong items" gives a clear selection criterion, and restore_memory is named as the inverse operation. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., preferring an update/edit path instead of dismissal for correctable facts), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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