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

Beyond annotations, it discloses return behavior ('deleted: false when there was nothing to delete'), retention limits, read-after-write lag, namespace scope, and billing details including repeat-call charges. This is rich behavioral context for a destructive paid operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and remains generally efficient. Some clauses are redundant, such as restating expiry rules and pricing, but each major sentence contributes operational context.

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 destructive, paid, two-parameter memory tool with no output schema, the description covers return semantics, billing, scope, expiry, and read lag. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail, including namespace secrecy and key length. The description adds a concrete example but mostly reinforces what the schema provides rather than adding new parameter semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: delete the value saved under a key in your namespace. It clearly distinguishes deletion from sibling memory operations such as memory_set and memory_get, and the added usage phrase 'forget a fact or clear task state' reinforces intent.

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?

It gives a clear use case: 'Use to forget a fact or clear task state.' It does not explicitly contrast with memory_set, memory_get, or memory_list, but the deletion context and scope make the intended usage clear enough for an agent.

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