Stop an engram from being active without deleting its history. Provide an ID or search term to retire the memory, keeping the audit trail intact.
Retire an engram by ID or search term — marks it as no longer active without deleting history
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Exact engram ID to retire | |
| search | No | Search term to find engram to retire |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context that the operation marks the engram inactive without deleting history, clarifying the nature of the destructiveness. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or permission requirements.
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 sentence of 17 words, front-loading the key action and result. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral outcome (retiring without deletion). It does not specify return values, but given idempotentHint and simplicity, this is a minor gap.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Exact engram ID to retire' and 'Search term to find engram to retire'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'retire' and the resource 'engram', with a specific mechanism (by ID or search term). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., plur_recall, plur_learn) by focusing on deactivation without deletion.
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 explains how to use the tool (by ID or search term) but provides no guidance on when to choose one over the other, nor does it mention any prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should be avoided in favor of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.