memory_remove

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully reveal that deletion is soft and data is retained, which is meaningful context. However, it does not mention what happens if the memory does not exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or whether there is any way to restore the memory later.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and then clarifies the soft-delete behavior. Every word 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 deletion tool, the description covers the essential behavior: soft deletion and data retention. It does not describe the response or error behavior, but given the simplicity of the operation and the fully documented parameter, the missing details are minor.

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 only parameter, 'id', is already described as 'Memory ID.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 the action ('soft-delete') and the resource ('a memory'), and adds a distinguishing detail: 'status marked as deleted, data retained.' This separates it from memory_replace and memory_consolidate by emphasizing deletion rather than modification.

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 implies the tool is used when a memory should be deleted, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools such as memory_replace or memory_consolidate. No alternative tools or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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