Forget

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the intent condition for deletion and says nothing about permanence, whether related memories are affected, or confirmation of deletion—useful but not rich on top of the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and rationale, and zero wasted words. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks two things: how to acquire a valid id and whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable. The annotations cover the safety profile, but these operational gaps keep it at merely adequate.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the weight: it implies the id identifies 'a memory' but never says which identifier it is or where to obtain it (e.g., from recall or list_memories). The meaning is intuitive but not documented, leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (a memory), and the qualifier 'wrong or no longer applies' sharpens the intent beyond a bare delete. It is clearly distinguishable from remember/recall, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings.

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?

'A memory that is wrong or no longer applies' gives an explicit trigger condition for when to use the tool. There is no guidance on when not to delete (e.g., use confirm_memory to verify first) or on alternatives, so it stops short of full routing.

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