memory_retract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important trait: this is a soft delete ('never hard-deleted'), which tells the agent the record is retained and searchable state may change rather than data vanishing. However, it says nothing about permissions, reversibility/undo, or effects on existing references, leaving substantial behavioral gaps.

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, no filler, with the core operation stated first and the retention guarantee second. Nothing wastes the agent's attention.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is thin — it does not say what a tombstoned fact does to future searches or whether the retraction can be reversed, both of which materially affect how an agent uses it.

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 would need to compensate for all three undocumented parameters. It does not: 'reason' and 'namespace' carry no explanation of format, expected values, or whether reason is required for audit purposes, and only fact_id is self-evident from its name.

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?

'Tombstone a fact' gives a specific verb and resource, and 'tombstone' is a precise technical term that distinguishes this from memory_search or memory_assert. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, memory_correct, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the alternatives (memory_correct, memory_assert) that an agent would weigh against it. A reader cannot tell from this text whether retraction is preferable to correction in a given situation.

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