Delete a memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the most important trait for a destructive operation: the deletion is "Permanently" irreversible. However, it says nothing about deletion side effects (e.g., impact on related memories given memory_relate and memory_digest siblings), behavior on a non-existent id, or required permissions, which leaves gaps for a mutation 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 six-word sentence with zero filler. The destructive scope "Permanently delete" is front-loaded, and the deletion key "by its id" completes the sentence efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter delete-by-id tool this is minimally adequate: the agent knows the action, the key, and the permanence. But with no annotations and no output schema, an agent is left guessing about error behavior (e.g., deleting a non-existent id), cascading effects on related memories, and confirmation semantics. A short note on side effects or missing-id handling would make it complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id as "Memory id (from memory_store or memory_list)". The description only echoes the parameter relationship with "by its id" and adds no new semantics such as id format, validity constraints, or idempotency behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Permanently delete a memory by its id." The word "Permanently" usefully differentiates this from the sibling memory_archive (likely a soft-delete) without naming it. It slightly misses the top tier because it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, but the intent is 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes memory_archive, memory_revive, memory_update, and memory_get, any of which could be relevant alternatives for a user considering deletion, yet the description offers no routing or exclusion. The usage context is only weakly implied by the purpose statement itself.

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