memory_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it discloses that deletion is destructive and adds a usage guardrail, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, whether confirmation is required, or what happens when the id does not exist.

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, purpose first and the restrictive condition second, with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so the structure itself is sound.

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 tool this covers purpose and when-to-call, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent still lacks deletion consequences, id format, and error behavior for a destructive operation.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the single required parameter `id` — no format, no source, no example of how to obtain a memory id. The agent must infer everything about the parameter from the name alone.

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?

"Delete a memory" states a specific verb and resource, clearly distinct from save/update/get/list siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with memory_update (which could also retire a fact), but the destructive verb 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?

"Only when the user asks or the fact is proven wrong" gives an explicit gating condition and a second qualifying case, which is stronger than most destructive tools get. It does not name the alternative to prefer when the fact merely needs correcting (memory_update).

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