memory_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion is 'soft' and that the entry is 'excluded from future searches', which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention whether the deletion is reversible, what happens to the underlying data, or behavior on missing IDs, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail. It is exemplary in conciseness.

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?

This is a simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema. The description explains the tool's purpose, effect, and required context. The sibling tools are available for context, and no additional behavioral details seem necessary for correct invocation. The description is complete for this tool.

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%, with both 'id' and 'namespace' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds 'Requires the namespace', but this is already evident from the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided, 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 'Soft-delete a memory by ID' and the effect 'excluded from future searches', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_store, memory_search, memory_recall, and memory_list_namespaces. The verb and resource are 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (to soft-delete a memory) and mentions a prerequisite (requires namespace), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against alternatives. The usage context is clear enough, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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