Remove a fact from long-term memory by ID, eliminating its metadata, payload, and graph connections to keep stored knowledge accurate and manageable.
Delete a fact by ID, including its metadata, payload, and graph links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly reveals a destructive action with its side effects: deletion includes metadata, payload, and graph links. It stops short of stating irreversibility or permission requirements, but delete semantics are clear and there is no contradiction.
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 that names the operation and its useful scope. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.
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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral details an agent needs: what is deleted and what is affected. It could mention finding the ID or that deletion is permanent, but the description is reasonably complete given the simplicity of 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?
The input schema's only property is an undocumented id string, so the description adds meaning by clarifying that the id identifies the fact to be removed. However, it does not explain how to obtain the ID, what format it uses, or what happens to dependent facts, leaving some ambiguity for a low-coverage 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 states a specific action (delete), a specific resource (fact), and how the operation affects related data (metadata, payload, and graph links). This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like memory_update or memory_link_add, which operate on different resources.
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 wording makes it clear the tool is for deleting a fact once its ID is known, but it offers no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose, such as memory_update for edits or memory_list to find IDs. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.