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 and idempotentHint, so the description's main added value is the irreversibility warning: 'this cannot be undone.' This goes beyond the structured hints by clarifying the permanence of the deletion for the agent.
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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by usage context and an important warning. Every sentence 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 simple single-parameter destructive operation with output schema, annotations, and a clear irreversibility warning, the description is complete. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly and understand the consequence.
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%, and the schema already explains 'ID of the memory to permanently delete.' The description adds no significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('one stored memory'), an identifier ('by ID'), and a distinguishing outcome ('Permanently'). It is easy to tell apart from the sibling delete_session because it names memory as the 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 description explicitly says 'Use for user-requested cleanup or deletion', giving clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like palim_delete_session, but the memory-vs-session distinction is evident from the tool names and description.
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.