memory_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: files are moved to .tombstones/ with removal reason and session id, never hard-deleted. It also reveals downstream effects (searchable tombstones, removed_matches on memory_write) and reversibility via memory_restore, providing rich operational detail.

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 compact yet information-dense, with each sentence adding value. It opens with the core action, then explains mechanism, use case, searchability, and undo—achieving completeness without unnecessary words.

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 complexity and the lack of annotations, the description covers the full lifecycle: what happens on removal, where data goes, how it can be searched, how it affects memory_write, and how to undo. It is self-contained and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining that 'reason' is the removal reason stored in the tombstone. However, 'id' is only implicitly understood as the memory identifier; the description could explicitly map both parameters. Still, it adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Tombstone a memory,' a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from hard deletion by explaining the tombstone mechanism. It also clearly states when to use it ('when a stored fact is wrong or no longer relevant'), setting it apart from siblings like memory_update.

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 provides explicit usage context: use when a fact is wrong or irrelevant. It names alternatives and complements (memory_restore for undo, memory_list_tombstones for searching) and explains how tombstones surface via memory_write, giving the agent clear guidance on selecting this tool.

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