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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: deletion is limited to the exact memory ID and is scoped to a single user and brand, and it clarifies the replacement workflow sequencing. This adds value beyond the structured annotations.

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 filler. The when-to-use condition is front-loaded, and the scope constraint follows immediately. Every phrase earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive operation with a fully documented schema, an output schema, and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is complete. It covers when to invoke the tool, what it deletes, and the isolation scope. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both brand_id and memory_id fully documented including patterns, examples, and rules for sourcing exact IDs. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Deletes'), a precise resource ('the exact memory ID'), and a clear scope ('only for this user and brand'). This distinguishes it from siblings like save_memory and list_memories without needing to open their schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: when the user asks to forget a memory, or before replacing overlapping context with a consolidated memory. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context and exact-ID scoping make the intended usage clear.

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