Maintain memory

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that durable memories and supersession chains are never dropped, and explains parameter effects on what gets removed. It also mentions the return format (counts and ids), providing transparency beyond annotations.

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, starting with the core action, then a high-level purpose, followed by a parameter list with clear explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return of counts and ids. All parameters are fully described. The tool's role as a maintenance pass and its relation to retention policies is complete. No gaps are evident.

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 explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: ttl with default and special cases, min_value, max_records, and consolidate_threshold. Each parameter's effect and default behavior are clearly stated.

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 tool runs a no-LLM memory-maintenance pass and returns a deletion audit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like forget by emphasizing it bounds storage without LLM involvement. The title 'Maintain memory' aligns well.

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 positions the tool as an enterprise retention / 'right to be forgotten' lever, implying use for memory cleanup without LLM cost. It says it 'bounds storage and keeps recall clean,' providing context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools beyond this.

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