palinode_forget_withdraw

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by stating exactly what gets restored, un-struck, and archived, plus per-step audited commits and per-target failure reporting. This gives the agent a strong mental model of the operation's side effects.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences: the first gives a plain-language summary, the second enumerates exact effects and operational guarantees. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes to invocation confidence.

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 moderately complex destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, commit behavior, and error reporting. Nothing essential is missing for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters. It reinforces that file_path points to the memory holding the request and that reason feeds the audit trail, but it adds little beyond what the schema already says.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Take a forget request back,' then spells out the concrete effects (restoring archived memories, un-striking retracted mentions, archiving request records). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like palinode_rollback or palinode_unretract, which target different reversal operations.

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 description makes the trigger condition obvious: use this when a previously filed 'please forget that…' request must be withdrawn, and identify the memory file that holds it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with nearby siblings, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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