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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the deletion removes the note from all AI visibility and requires an id sourced from recall, though it never explicitly states whether the delete is reversible or permanent at the storage level.

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?

Three short sentences, zero redundancy, and the core action plus consequence are front-loaded before the usage conditions.

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 single-parameter delete with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is deleted, the effect, where the id comes from, and when to invoke it.

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 uuid id is already documented. The description adds the useful provenance detail that the id comes from recall, telling the agent where to source the value rather than guessing, which is a small step above the baseline for a one-parameter tool.

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 and resource ("Delete one of the user's saved notes from Foundaree Memory") plus the user-visible consequence ("so no AI sees it again"), which clearly separates it from remember, recall, and update_memory.

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 triggers ("when the user asks you to forget something, or a note is wrong or out of date") and a prerequisite for obtaining the id ("Get the id from recall"). It stops short of naming update_memory as the alternative for correcting a stale note, leaving that overlap to inference.

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