delete_segmentRemove a memory segment from an IDA Pro database by specifying any address within it, with optional flags to disable addresses or control timeout.
Delete a memory segment from the IDB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flags | No | Deletion flags (0=normal, 1=SEGMOD_KILL: disable addresses) | |
| address | Yes | Any address within the segment to delete (hex string) | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id override |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a destructive mutation by saying 'Delete,' but omits key details such as irreversibility, permission requirements, effects on dependent data, and the behavioral impact of the flags parameter. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it conveys.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the consequences of deletion, whether it can be undone, and how the flags affect behavior, but it provides only a minimal restatement of the tool's name.
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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the address required field and the flags semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (memory segment) with a clear scope (from the IDB). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like add_segment or list_segments, but the verb makes the operation unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites or conditions for deletion. The agent must infer all usage context from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.