memory_governance_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: permanence/irreversibility, removal of access and search-index entries, audit-reason recording, removal of archive metadata for deleted originals, enforcement of project membership, and that missing IDs are skipped rather than erroring.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and the archive alternative come first, then constraints, then return shape. It packs a lot into five sentences with little waste, though the return-value sentence is somewhat clausal and could be tighter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by describing the return payload (success, deleted count, requested total, archiveStatesRemoved) and skip behavior. Combined with the scope exclusions, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a 3-parameter mutation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: project is required for archive targets and, when supplied, must match every selected memory; reason is tied to audit recording. It clarifies the enforcement behavior rather than just restating field names.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (permanently delete), the resource (comma-separated memoryIds plus their access/search-index entries), and a side effect (recording an audit reason). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_archive ('Use memory_archive for reversible hiding').

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?

Names the reversible alternative (memory_archive), states the condition under which the project parameter is required, and gives explicit scope exclusions ('does not delete sessions or observations'). An agent knows when to pick this versus archive and what constraints apply.

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