suppress

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that memory persists but is inhibited, each call compounds, a background worker cascades decay to neighbors, and it's reversible within 24 hours. Scientific references add credibility.

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 a single paragraph, front-loaded with the verb and distinction. It contains necessary details but could be slightly more concise by reducing redundancy between schema and description.

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?

Covers key behaviors (persistence, inhibition, compounding, cascading, reversibility). Missing details on how to check suppression level or status, but overall adequate given no output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: 'compounds suppression strength', 'cascades decay', and 'reversible within 24 hours' for the reverse parameter, providing extra meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states it suppresses memory via inhibitory control, distinguishes from delete, and explains the memory persists but is inhibited. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'delete' and 'protect'.

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?

It notes distinction from delete and reversibility via reverse=true, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'delete' or 'protect'. The context of compounding and cascading decay provides implicit guidance.

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