Stateless Agent Memory Engine (SAME)

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, which the description aligns with by noting suppression rather than deletion. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies that suppressed notes won't appear in normal search, require explicit requests to view, and the action is not easily reversible—none of which are covered by annotations alone.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, parameter summary, and return note. It's front-loaded with key information, though the 'Args' section slightly duplicates schema content, and the experimental tag could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the action, behavioral implications, and irreversibility. However, it lacks details on error conditions or confirmation format, which would enhance completeness given the tool's experimental nature.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value by restating parameter purposes in the 'Args' section, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the 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 the specific action ('suppress a memory') and resource ('note'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete' operations. It explicitly contrasts suppression with deletion and explains the effect on search visibility, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for outdated, incorrect, or irrelevant memories') and when not to use it ('not easily reversible: there is no mem_restore tool'). This clearly differentiates it from potential alternatives like deletion tools.

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