Rememb

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. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or error handling for invalid IDs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs deletions.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of a deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), error responses, or what happens post-deletion. While the schema covers the single parameter well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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 the parameter 'entry_id' fully documented in the schema as 'Entry ID to delete'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only restating that removal is 'by ID' without providing additional context like ID format or examples. 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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a memory entry by ID'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rememb_clear' (which likely removes all entries) and 'rememb_edit' (which modifies rather than deletes). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource type (e.g., 'memory' vs. 'database entry'), leaving slight room for interpretation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing entry ID), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk deletion), or comparisons to siblings like 'rememb_clear' (for removing all entries) or 'rememb_edit' (for updates). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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