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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that deletion spans 'all storage layers' and that ambiguous prefixes are refused with a list of matching IDs; that goes beyond what the annotations say.

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, front-loaded with the destructive action and scope, followed by the key safety constraint. Every clause 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 single-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers scope, permanence, and the ambiguous-ID failure mode. What's missing is minor, e.g. whether deletion cascades to references or tags in bundles.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by stating the ambiguous-prefix behavior (refused, with matches listed) and linking the short-form convention to muninn_memory_get and _update.

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?

'Permanently delete a memory by ID from all storage layers' gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, which clearly separates it from muninn_memory_get, _update, and _list.

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 implies usage (delete a memory when you want it gone) and references the get/update siblings only for ID-format conventions, not as alternatives. There is no explicit when-not guidance, e.g. irreversibility or what to do if the memory is referenced elsewhere.

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