memory_rejectReject and delete a pending memory to prevent incorrect extractions or poisoned content from entering long-term storage.
Reject and delete a pending memory (incorrect extraction or poisoned content).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Memory ID (from memory_pending) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation already includes destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds context by specifying the scope (pending memory) and the rationale. No contradictions are present.
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, information-dense sentence with no superfluous words. All key elements are present.
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?
The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, and annotations. The description fully covers what it does, when to use it, and what parameter to provide. Nothing essential 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?
The only parameter 'id' is described as 'Memory ID (from memory_pending)', which precisely indicates what value to supply and where it originates. Full schema coverage is achieved.
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 (reject and delete) and the target (a pending memory), plus the specific reasons (incorrect extraction or poisoned content). It is immediately obvious what the tool does.
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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool: for pending memories that were incorrectly extracted or contain poisoned content. This gives clear guidance without needing to inspect sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.