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

No annotations provided, so description bears full weight. It discloses authorization requirements (own namespace or grant), rate limiting (max 100 ids), and cost ($0.001 per call via x402). This goes beyond the schema to inform behavior.

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, each carrying essential information: action+scope in first, limit+cost in second. No filler, front-loaded with purpose.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization, limits, and cost. It does not specify return behavior, but that is likely standard. Sufficient for agent selection.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description reinforces the 'max 100' constraint but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 specifies the action ('delete memories'), the target ('by id'), and the scope ('from YOUR namespace or a namespace you hold a write/rw grant for'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_write (create) and memory_search (search) by focusing on deletion.

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 states the max limit of 100 ids per call and the cost, which guides usage. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but given no other delete tool exists among siblings, the context is clear.

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