Permanently delete one stored memory by ID. Use for user-requested cleanup or deletion; this cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memory_id | Yes | ID of the memory to permanently delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Human-readable tool result text.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds the concrete consequence that the deletion is permanent and irreversible, which is useful context beyond the boolean hints.
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 tight sentences with the action and scope front-loaded and the irreversibility warning immediately after. No filler or restatement of the name.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety semantics. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when the ID does not exist or is already deleted.
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 the single parameter's description ('ID of the memory to permanently delete') fully documents it. The tool description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Permanently delete one stored memory by ID'), which is immediately actionable. It implicitly distinguishes from palim_delete_session via the 'memory' resource, but never names or contrasts the sibling explicitly.
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?
'Use for user-requested cleanup or deletion' gives a clear triggering context, and 'this cannot be undone' warns against casual use. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or pointing to an alternative for session/context deletion.
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.