consolidate

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing each operation's behavior (e.g., 'keep oldest', 'cosine thresholds', 'remove threads not touched in stale_days'). It also explains the dry_run parameter's effect, providing full transparency for the destructive hint.

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 single introductory sentence followed by a bullet-like list of operations. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple operations), the description provides a good overview of each sub-task and parameter mapping. It doesn't explain prerequisites or detailed effects, but an output schema exists to cover return values.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by implicitly defining each parameter through its usage in the operations (e.g., stale_days for idle_stale, note_cosine for merge_dup_notes). However, it does not explain constraints or formats beyond what is implied.

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 is for 'Periodic memory hygiene' and lists specific operations (merge_dup_notes, idle_stale, etc.), making the purpose well-defined. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compost' or 'agent_memory_cleanup', which may also perform memory maintenance.

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 implies periodic use but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or context for choosing it over similar tools.

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