Delete a memory entry by key under your authenticated Bearer key (agent_id is accepted but not currently used to partition storage — see memory_store's note). Use to clean up stale or sensitive context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key to delete | |
| agent_id | Yes | Accepted but not currently used to partition storage — memory is namespaced by your Bearer key. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral nuance: deletion is namespaced by Bearer key and agent_id is currently ignored. This clarifies the exact scope of the destructive operation beyond the annotation.
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 succinct sentences with front-loaded action and purpose. Every phrase adds value, including the cross-reference to memory_store's note, with no redundant filler.
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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with a destructiveHint annotation, the description fully covers what, when, and the auth/namespacing caveat. No output schema is present, but return values are not critical 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 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description repeats the agent_id caveat already in the schema but adds no new syntax or format details, so it provides only marginal value beyond structured fields.
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 uses the explicit verb 'Delete' with a specific resource 'memory entry by key' and adds scope ('under your authenticated Bearer key'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from memory_get/list/search/store siblings by naming the action and target.
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 phrase 'Use to clean up stale or sensitive context' gives a clear intended use case. It also cautions about agent_id not partitioning storage, which is important for correct usage, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between 'decision' and 'reason', both offering advisory output. Also, 'review', 'witness', 'prove', and 'verify_proof' overlap in the proofs space, though descriptions differentiate them. Overall, an agent can disambiguate with careful reading.
All tool names use lowercase and underscores (snake_case), which is consistent. However, the verbs vary: some are imperative (e.g., 'browse', 'execute'), while others are nouns (e.g., 'signals', 'ledger'), breaking a strict verb_noun pattern. Overall, the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
With 30 tools, the surface is too large for a well-scoped server. Many functions could be separated (e.g., memory, workspace, feedback, marketplace). This excess makes it harder for an agent to navigate and select the right tool quickly.
The tool set covers core CRUD for memory and workspace, plus feedback, marketplace purchase, bounties, and verification. However, there is no tool to list or search marketplace listings, and workspace creation is only implicit via 'execute'. These gaps hinder fluid workflows.
