delete_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds the ownership constraint, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a deletion operation with zero annotations, more context would be expected, but the simplicity of the tool partially mitigates the gap.

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 zero wasted words. The core purpose and the key usage constraint are front-loaded, and the alternative tool is mentioned directly. Every sentence earns its place, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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 (single parameter, no nested objects), and an output schema is present, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description provides the essential operational context: what it does, ownership condition, and when to use it. However, it lacks explicit parameter meaning and any mention of prerequisites or side effects, which leaves minor gaps for an agent to resolve. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 has no description for entry_id, and the description does not explicitly explain what entry_id represents or how to obtain it. It implies the ID relates to the memory entry, but does not specify its format, source (e.g., from search_memory), or that it must belong to the user. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's meaning.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('your own memory entry'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool mark_superseded by defining the ownership scope. This makes it easy for an agent to select correctly among the many sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (for your own memory entries) and provides an alternative ('For other people's entries use mark_superseded instead'). This is a model example of usage guidance—clear, actionable, and eliminates ambiguity about selection.

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