Ensure comments and public-facing documentation precisely match the actual behavior and contract.

Apply this standard by checking:

• No doc/behavior drift: If you add/adjust command options (e.g., STRICT/PERSIST) or state transitions (e.g., TTL handling), update all descriptions (PR text, command docs, inline comments) to reflect the implemented semantics.
• Define exact meaning of outputs/fields: For INFO/metrics and API parameters, state what is included/excluded and what the field represents (e.g., “count is number of field names, not values”; “shared vs unshared bytes”).
• Document semantic edge cases: If duplicates are possible (e.g., subkey field names) or behavior depends on flags/invariants, explicitly document the expectation and any performance-vs-deduplication tradeoff.
• Clarify unit/size semantics: When a function returns a requested value rather than an allocated one, document that explicitly and ensure call sites don’t rely on the wrong notion.
• Explain non-trivial logic: For complex algorithms or rate-limiting behavior, include a short rationale/step summary in comments so maintainers can follow the intent.
• Justify magic constants: For bounds like a specific upper limit, add the reason (e.g., overflow/representable range) and keep the check consistent.

Example (magic constant rationale):

if (period <= 0 || period >= 1000000000000LL) {
    /* 1e12 chosen so that when converting to microseconds we stay within int64 range */
    addReplyError(c, "period must be > 0 and < 1e12");
    return;
}

Rule of thumb: if someone can misinterpret the contract from the docs (TTL semantics, count semantics, shared-vs-unshared accounting, requested-vs-allocated), fix the documentation until the interpretation is unambiguous.