memory_slot_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the failure conditions, the audit-entry side effect, the duplicate-label resolution order (project slot first, revealing the global slot on later reads), and the semantic difference between deleting the context unit and clearing its content.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, then failure modes, then the alternative-tool routing. No sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description covers the return shape, side effects, error conditions, and edge cases (duplicate labels, retention vs deletion). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond 'Slot label' by explaining cross-slot label collisions and which slot wins on delete.

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+resource ('Delete the effective slot') plus a side effect ('record an audit entry') and a return value. This clearly separates it from siblings like memory_slot_get, memory_slot_replace, and memory_slot_list.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and its selecting condition: 'use memory_slot_replace with empty content to retain it [the context unit]'. It also states when the call will fail (missing or read-only slots) and that seeded defaults are deletable when writable.

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