memory_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior of the hard parameter (archive vs. trash) and the default action, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like reversibility or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral details unstated. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and default behavior are front-loaded, followed by a concise usage guideline. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the when-to-use scenario. It clarifies the two operational modes and the parameter semantics. Minor gaps like explicit side effects or prerequisites are not critical given the tool's simplicity, so it feels largely complete.

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 coverage is 50%: the id parameter is described in the schema, but the hard parameter is not. The description adds meaningful semantic detail for hard by explaining that hard=true moves to Notion trash, and it clarifies the default archive behavior. This compensates for the missing schema description and goes beyond a bare boolean.

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 clearly states the action: archive a memory by default, or move it to Notion trash with hard=true. It identifies the resource (memory) and the two operational modes, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like memory_update or memory_add.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a memory is wrong or obsolete.' This gives a clear context for selecting this tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools. It stops short of naming siblings or exclusion scenarios, so a 4 is appropriate.

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