Redact Memory

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that an audit trail is kept, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not elaborate on permissions, irreversibility, or how the replacement content is handled beyond the schema parameter.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the action and key feature (audit trail), and includes a usage instruction. No unnecessary words.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown) and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the effect of the default replacement, but overall it covers purpose, usage condition, and audit trail.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 redacts sensitive content from a memory and keeps an audit trail. It distinguishes from deletion tools by emphasizing redaction and audit, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'forget' or 'forget_memory'.

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 includes a clear usage condition: 'Call this only when the user explicitly asks to redact.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the condition is specific and helpful.

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