cortex_memory_erase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions 'erase' but does not disclose whether the erase is permanent, what data is removed, whether it requires permissions, or what side effects occur. 'Surgically' and 'Gated DeltaNet-2 pure erase gate' are flavor/implementation detail rather than actionable transparency.

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?

One short sentence, front-loading the action and resource. The trailing 'using the Gated DeltaNet-2 pure erase gate' is technical flavor that does not help an agent invoke the tool, but the overall length is efficient.

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, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits irreversibility, confirmation requirements, and side effects. The schema covers the key parameter, but the safety context an agent needs before erasing memory is missing.

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 single parameter 'key' is already documented as 'Key to erase.' The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('erase') and resource ('key from neural memory'), making the action clear. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like cortex_memory_remember or cortex_memory_recall, so it lacks the sibling differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 phrase 'obsolete key' gives a vague condition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as cortex_memory_remember or recall. Usage must be inferred.

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