memory_archive

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

No annotations exist; the description fully discloses the behavior: creates a tombstone, excludes archived memories from certain operations, and specifies recoverability via memory_restore. No contradictions.

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 no wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then provides usage guidelines and behavioral details efficiently.

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?

Despite lacking output schema, the description covers the operation's purpose, constraints (exclusion from recall/list/audit/find_similar), recovery path, and usage context. No critical 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'note' as a tombstone note but does not elaborate on ref, title, or category beyond the schema. Adequate but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning.

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 states a specific action ('soft-retire a memory'), targets a clear resource ('memory'), and uses a verb ('archive') that distinguishes it from 'forget' and 'memory_restore'. It also clarifies the outcome: moved to archive tier with a tombstone.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this instead of forget when the memory may need to be recovered or audited later') and contrasts with sibling tools like recall, list, audit, and find_similar, which exclude archived memories.

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