delete_memento

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a destructive/irreversible deletion operation by implication ('Deletes'), which is an inherent behavioral trait. It mentions the 'exact ID' requirement, which suggests deletion is strict and may fail without an exact match. However, it doesn't describe failure cases, whether deletion cascades to attachments (potentially relevant given save_memento_attachments exists), or confirm if it's reversible.

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, zero filler, front-loaded verb. It earns each sentence: the first states the action and scope, the second provides the prerequisite. Compact and efficient, though it could arguably be trimmed.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it deletes, the ID requirement, and the prerequisite step to obtain a valid ID. Given its simplicity, it's reasonably complete. A minor gap is not disclosing potential side effects on associated attachments, which is a plausible concern given the sibling attachment tools.

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% and the description reinforces the 'exact ID' requirement, adding nuance beyond the schema by emphasizing matching precision. The description's mention that the ID applies 'regardless of whether it is global or repository-scoped' clarifies the ID's semantics which the schema alone doesn't convey. Only one parameter, so little room for ambiguity.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Deletes an existing memento by its exact ID'. Explicitly clarifies it works for both global and repository-scoped mementos, which helps distinguish from related tools like move_memento or save_memento. Very specific and 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?

Provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires init_memento or get_mementos first', which tells the agent what must happen before calling this tool to obtain the exact ID. However, it doesn't state when NOT to use it or contrast with alternatives like move_memento, though the prerequisite guidance is a solid usage constraint.

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