consolidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior: merging, aging out, and returning a short summary. But it does not clarify whether the merge/age-out is destructive, irreversible, or requires any special conditions, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation-oriented tool.

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 sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the operation and threshold, the second states the return value. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description covers the operation, the age threshold, and the return format. The main missing element is clearer disclosure of side effects or permanence, especially since no annotations are available.

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 has zero parameters, and the empty schema fully communicates that no arguments are needed. The description adds no parameter details, but none are required; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool 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?

The description states a specific, recognizable maintenance operation: merging duplicate memory entries and aging out entries older than 90 days. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (recording, recalling, file anchoring) because it names the exact actions and resource.

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 usage context is implied through the concrete triggers 'duplicate memory entries' and 'older than 90 days,' so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name any alternative tool for memory cleanup.

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