MemOS

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes critical behavioral constraints: batching requirements, forbidden usage patterns (multiple calls, search-delete loops, simulation of modifications), and prerequisites (explicit user request with IDs). It doesn't mention error handling, confirmation prompts, or irreversible nature, but covers most essential behavioral aspects for a deletion tool.

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 well-structured with Trigger, Purpose, STRICT RULES, and Parameters sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the STRICT RULES section could be more concise. The information is front-loaded with clear purpose and critical constraints. Minor redundancy exists between the Purpose statement and parameter description.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about usage constraints, behavioral rules, and alternatives. It covers the destructive nature implicitly through the strict rules. Missing elements include error handling details and confirmation mechanisms, but overall it's quite complete for guiding safe tool invocation.

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% with the parameter clearly documented as 'List of memory IDs to delete'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameter in the Parameters section but doesn't provide additional context about ID format, validation, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 'Delete memories by ID' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'use add_feedback instead' when no ID is provided, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like search_memory. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more comprehensive about sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides explicit usage rules including when to use (user explicitly asks to delete AND provides IDs), when NOT to use (no ID provided, to simulate modifications), and alternatives (use add_feedback instead). The STRICT RULES section gives clear guidance on batching, forbidden patterns, and prerequisites.

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