purge_memory

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the destruction scope (edit history and relations), irreversibility, and the contrast with forget()'s reversible archive model. It does not surface the confirm_phrase user-typing guard, which is a meaningful behavioral requirement, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the PERMANENTLY/irreversible warning, then the routing rule. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with full annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the critical context: what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, and when to prefer the reversible alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (uid and confirm_phrase) are fully documented in the schema, including the exact confirm_phrase construction rule. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('PERMANENTLY delete a memory') and immediately scopes what is removed ('+ its edit history + relations'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling forget(), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: prefer forget() 'unless the user explicitly asked to permanently remove data'. It names the alternative and the exact condition that selects this tool over it, leaving nothing to inference.

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