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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the owner-scoping restriction (a caller can only clear its OWN note), the destructive nature of the operation, and idempotency semantics (removed=0 if it didn't exist). It omits any mention of authentication requirements despite an authorization 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the parameter modes and the idempotency caveat. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior, and it covers deletion scope, ownership constraints, and the removed return value. The unexplained authorization parameter is the remaining gap for a delete operation.

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 50%: memory_key is well documented in the schema and the description reinforces it with account-level vs per-customer framing. The authorization parameter is undocumented in both places, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Delete) and resource (caller's cross-session memory note), and immediately clarifies scope: account-level vs a single end-customer's note. No sibling tool does anything comparable, so the agent can place it precisely without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for the two invocation modes: omit memory_key to clear the account-level note, supply it to clear one end-customer's note. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the mode selection is unambiguous.

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