Memory Flush

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is forced and time-bounded, but doesn't state whether it modifies persistent state, what happens if the timeout is exceeded, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. The use case hints at a write operation but doesn't fully disclose side effects.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides practical context. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage timing, and the timeout concept. Given no annotations, it could mention that this is a write/mutation operation more explicitly, but the picture is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% for the single parameter (timeout), so baseline is 3. The description's reference to a 'time budget' loosely maps to the parameter, but it adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Force pending memory extractions to run now'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_get, memory_search, and memory_remember. The action is unambiguous and the name 'flush' is reinforced by the description.

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?

Provides concrete use cases ('before shutting down' and 'when a client wants the memory written before it reports success') that tell an agent when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the two scenarios are clear and cover the main need.

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