Forget a memory

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot express: that shred=True crypto-shreds and is unrecoverable from this vault, which materially changes the risk calculus. It omits what happens on a missing record or any permission requirement.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the risky parameter caveat immediately after. 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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, annotations cover the mutation safety profile, and the irreversible shred behavior is disclosed. The remaining gap is the required record_id's semantics, which is a minor but real omission for a deletion 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains the non-obvious parameter (shred) with real consequence detail — unrecoverable crypto-shred. However, record_id, the only required parameter, is entirely unexplained (format, source, whether it is a name or UUID).

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 ('Delete a memory'), which is unambiguous and clearly separable from siblings like memory_store, memory_search, or memory_unlink. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the destructive verb alone distinguishes it.

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 implied by the verb — you call this when you want a memory gone — and the shred flag is framed as a mode choice. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over memory_unlink or when not to call it (e.g., non-existent IDs), which leaves the agent to infer.

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