memory_lesson_delete

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that deletion is soft, that it removes lessons from recall/list, and that re-saving restores a fresh lesson. It omits auth/permission requirements and behavior for a nonexistent id, keeping it short of a 5.

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, zero filler, with the core action and its consequence front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema delete tool, the description covers the essential mechanics (soft delete, effect on recall/list, re-save behavior). Missing only edge cases like unknown ids or permission failures.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the optional project/archive caveat. The description only restates the target-by-id idea, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete a lesson') plus the identifier used to target it. It is clearly distinguishable from the lesson_save/recall siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that deleted lessons leave recall and list signals 'use this when you want a lesson suppressed', but there is no explicit when-not or routing to alternatives such as memory_governance_delete or a hard-delete path.

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