context_expire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the return value: 'Returns {expired: true} if a record was removed, false if the key didn't exist.' It also discloses the scoping limitation ('Scoped to your app_id'). It does not state whether the deletion is irreversible or require any permissions, but for a delete operation the behavior is well communicated.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by return behavior and scope. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without any fluff or repetition. It is exceptionally efficient for the information conveyed.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the return value, and the scoping constraint. It gives enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. A small gap is the absence of any caveat about permanence or prerequisites, but overall it is adequately complete for this low-complexity 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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does explain app_id by noting the scope 'Scoped to your app_id' and mentions 'key' in the context of existence ('if the key didn't exist'). However, it does not clarify what a 'key' represents or how to obtain it, leaving some ambiguity. The description adds value but does not fully compensate for the total lack of schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Delete one of your saved contexts immediately, ahead of any TTL.' The verb 'Delete' and resource 'saved contexts' are specific, and the phrase 'ahead of any TTL' distinguishes it from normal TTL-based expiration. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like context_save, context_get, and context_list.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when an immediate deletion of a saved context is needed, ahead of any TTL. It also includes a scope exclusion: 'Scoped to your app_id — you cannot expire another app's context.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or situations where this tool should not be used, so it misses the top score for explicit when-not guidance.

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