consolidate

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true, and description goes far beyond that: it warns dry_run defaults true and reports only, and enumerates six destructive/potential actions with their exact criteria (cosine thresholds, stale days, orphan days, retention bounds). This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone could not convey.

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?

Frontloaded dry_run warning, then a scannable six-line bullet list, each line one purposeful rule. No filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 an output schema present, return values do not need description. The main gaps are minor jargon ('claim mark', 'retention bounds') and no explicit scheduling guidance. Still, an agent can correctly invoke the tool safely and understand what each action will do.

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%, but description gives real semantics for all five parameters: note_cosine and verbatim_cosine are similarity thresholds, stale_days and orphan_days are age cutoff, and dry_run controls report-only mode. This compensates fully for the bare schema.

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?

clear resource ('memory') and six concrete sub-operations in bullet list; avoids tautology. It does not explicitly name sibling tools (e.g., compost, forget, db_compact) to distinguish itself from them.

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?

Description labels the tool as 'periodic memory hygiene' and notes dry_run reports only, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It leaves it to the agent to infer when to call consolidate versus the many related maintenance/cleanup siblings.

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