Delete Memory Keyspace

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: it closes the keyspace's live watch, releases MCP resource-subscription ownership to prevent deadlock, and enforces policy/authority checks. This is precisely the kind of behavioral context an agent needs beyond the structured hints, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the destructive action and warning, followed by a labelled Args section. The technical sentence about closing watches and releasing subscriptions is somewhat niche but earns its place by explaining a real safety mechanism; 'explicit denials' is the only slightly vague phrase.

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 destructive operation, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and important safety side effects well. However, because both parameters are optional in the schema, the missing guidance on what happens if scope/keyspace are absent, or how they interact, is a meaningful completeness gap. With no output schema, a brief note on expected confirmation or error behavior would also strengthen the definition.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does well: scope is explained as mapping to keyspace mem_<scope> with the special value 'shared', and keyspace is described as an explicit override that bypasses scope. The main gap is that both parameters are optional in the schema but the description never clarifies what happens if both are omitted or whether they are mutually exclusive.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently remove a memory namespace using the owner's authority.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_keyspace, list_keyspaces, remember, or forget without requiring schema inspection.

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 lifecycle use and states authority prerequisites ('using the owner's authority', 'enforces remove-keyspace, creator authority, and explicit denials'). However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives such as montycat_forget for deleting individual memories or says when not to use it, leaving the routing mostly implicit.

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