delete_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation targets either semantic or episodic memory types, which is useful scope information. However, it doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether it requires any permissions, or whether related/referenced memories are also affected.

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 a single focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, then scopes with the semantic/episodic distinction and id requirement. No redundancy or 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?

For a simple single-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, as a delete operation with zero annotations, it would benefit from stating irreversibility or idempotency behavior. The mention of 'semantic or episodic' types is genuinely helpful context.

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 the schema fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds minimal value by confirming the id refers to what search_memory/save_memory return (already stated in the schema). With full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate with no significant extra meaning added.

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 one memory entry (semantic or episodic) by its id' - a specific verb (delete) and resource (memory entry), with clarity that it handles both semantic and episodic types. It differentiates from siblings like save_memory and search_memory by describing the write/delete operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'by its id' and mentioning both semantic and episodic memory types, indicating when this applies. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance, nor does it address edge cases like what happens when the operations is attempted on a missing/invalid id.

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