Delete a memory node

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

Even though annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it deletes incident edges and entity index rows, missing ids return deleted=false, auth is policy-gated and may require HITL. This gives an agent a clear picture of side effects and failure behavior beyond the annotation flags.

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 four sentences with no filler. The core effect is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, exclusions, idempotent behavior, missing-id semantics, and auth considerations. Every sentence earns its place and the structure supports quick comprehension by an agent.

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 destructive, idempotent delete operation with a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, this description is complete. It covers what gets deleted, what does not happen, behavior on missing ids, confirmation guidance, and auth requirements — nothing essential is left to inference.

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% — item_id is already documented as 'Id of the memory node to delete (from memory_write or memory_read).' The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Permanently delete one memory node and its incident edges/entity index rows,' which states a specific action, resource, and scope. It clearly differentiates from siblings like memory_write, memory_read, and memory_consolidate, and the title 'Delete a memory node' reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('Use when a fact must be forgotten'), what not to do with it ('Do not use to hide a node while keeping it — there is no soft-delete'), and gives a recommended preceding action ('Prefer memory_read first to confirm the id'). This is model guidance for tool selection and safe invocation.

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