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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that deletion is a soft-delete rather than a hard delete, and that graph edges are cleaned up. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then states both deletion modes and the side effect. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the operation, the two invocation modes, and the graph cleanup side effect. The main gap is that it does not explicitly state that at least one of memory_id or source_id must be supplied, nor what happens if both are set.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description maps memory_id to a single soft-delete and source_id to a cascade delete, but this largely restates the schema descriptions. It does not clarify whether exactly one of the two identifiers is required or how conflicts are resolved if both are provided.

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 the tool's action: soft-delete a memory by memory_id, or cascade-delete all memories from a source_id. It also names the side effect of cleaning up graph edges, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like remember, search, and validate_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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool and which mode to use: single memory deletion via memory_id versus cascade deletion via source_id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the two usage modes are explicit enough.

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