suppress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that suppression is non-deleting, that each call compounds suppression strength, that a background Rac1 worker cascades decay to co-activated neighbors, and that reversal is only possible within a 24-hour window. This is substantial, non-obvious behavioral detail.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and distinct-from-delete clarification. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the scientific citation '(Anderson 2025 SIF + Davis Rac1)' is arguably unnecessary for tool invocation and may add noise for an AI agent.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key outcome, side effects, compounding behavior, neighbor cascading, and reversibility. It does not state the return value or error behavior when reverse is attempted outside the 24-hour window, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents id, reason, and reverse parameters effectively. The description adds context about repeated calls compounding and reverse=true being tied to the 24-hour window, but it does not materially extend what the schema already states.

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 action ('suppress'), a clear resource ('a memory'), and the mechanism ('top-down inhibitory control'). It explicitly contrasts with delete by explaining that the memory persists but is inhibited and decays, which gives an agent a precise mental model of what this tool does.

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 this tool versus delete: suppress when the memory should remain but be inhibited from retrieval. It also notes reversibility within 24 hours via reverse=true. It does not, however, discuss when to use suppress versus other related siblings like protect or restore.

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