rememb_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it specifies that deletion is 'permanent' and 'irreversible,' clarifies there are 'no cascading side effects,' and distinguishes it from update operations. It doesn't cover aspects like error handling or permissions, but provides substantial context for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical warnings and sibling comparisons. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second warns of irreversibility, the third clarifies side effects, and the last two provide usage alternatives. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, irreversible nature, lack of side effects, and sibling distinctions. It doesn't specify return values or error cases, but for a single-parameter delete tool, this is sufficient for safe use.

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 input schema already documents the 'entry_id' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic details about the parameter beyond implying it's used for deletion. This meets the baseline of 3 when 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 specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a single memory entry by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like rememb_edit (update) and rememb_clear (delete all). It avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use rememb_edit to update instead. Use rememb_clear to delete all entries at once.' This directly addresses sibling tools and clarifies the scope of deletion.

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