retire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses that the note remains in the store, that withdrawal is reversible, that history stays readable, and that recall stops returning the note. It also states that ambiguous/unknown references change nothing and say so. It omits permission or authentication details, but those are not essential for basic invocation.

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 tight and well-organized: the first paragraph establishes purpose and behavioral outcome, and the second paragraph focuses on parameter semantics. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no repetition of schema details or filler.

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 tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the core behavior and the critical node_id parameter well. However, it leaves reason and project unexplained, and while an output schema exists, the agent is still missing enough parameter context to confidently construct calls that use those fields. Overall it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 compensate for all parameters. It thoroughly explains node_id (short id from recall, unique prefix, ambiguous/unknown behavior), but reason and project are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. This leaves two of three parameters underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Withdraw') and resource ('a memory note') and clearly scopes it to facts that are wrong or no longer apply. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining how recall stops returning the note, so an agent can tell retire apart from recall and learn.

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 gives clear criteria for when to use the tool: when a fact is wrong or no longer applies. It also explains the behavior for ambiguous or unknown references. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use recall to find the node_id' or 'use learn to add a note,' so some exclusion guidance is left implicit.

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