memory_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes permission requirements (destructive nature implied but not stated). It lacks information about effects on success/failure, whether the operation is permanent, or any side effects, which is critical for a deletion tool.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It could be slightly more structured or front-loaded with critical info, but it is not verbose.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the irreversible nature of deletion, error handling, or what happens to related data. For a potentially destructive tool, more context is needed.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (key). It is specific enough to understand the core function, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory_archive, which might serve a similar purpose.

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 mentions who is authorized to use the tool (PM or writer), providing a usage constraint. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_set or memory_archive, nor does it include any exclusions or context for appropriate use.

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