memory_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: this is a soft delete (archived=1), not a permanent removal, which reframes the destructiveHint and implies reversibility. It stops short of stating how to recover an archived observation, which would complete the picture.

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?

A single short sentence that is fully front-loaded with the operation and mechanism. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is the absence of guidance on recovery or on how this differs from memory_admin.

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%, so both 'id' and 'project' are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by ID', adding no format or behavioral detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete an observation by ID') and even reveals the mechanism ('sets archived=1'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from the nearby memory_admin sibling that may also manage deletion.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this or memory_admin should be used for archiving/removal.

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