Consolidate memory

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful context by enumerating the destructive actions (promote, decay, prune) and qualifies safety ('safe to run periodically'), which helps the agent understand the nature of the operation. It does not mention potential irreversible side effects or interactions with other tools, but it goes slightly beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a usage note. Every sentence earns its place—no filler or repetition. It is compact and scannable.

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 parameters, an output schema, and a clear conceptual role, the description covers what it does and when to run it. It doesn't detail the output format (but the output schema exists) or potential side effects on other memory operations, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add anything about them, so the baseline stands.

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 what the tool does: runs a consolidation pass that promotes repeated episodes to facts, decays stale slots, and prunes below-threshold items. It identifies a specific verb and resource, and its 'sleep-like maintenance step' phrasing hints at its distinct role relative to store/recall, though it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly.

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 provides a frequency guideline ('safe to run periodically, not per turn'), which tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke. However, it does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use zenbrain_store vs. this), so the agent must infer the tool's niche from the name and purpose.

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