reset_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Destructive and irreversible,' which is the critical safety trait, and further clarifies namespace isolation with 'This never clears other users' namespaces.' This provides strong, directly relevant context beyond what the schema implies.

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 extremely concise: two sentences of behavioral context plus a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information ('Delete ALL', 'Destructive and irreversible') is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which the description needn't explain), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, destructive nature, parameter semantics, and scope isolation. No critical gaps remain.

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 compensate for the single parameter. It does so by explaining user_id as a 'Namespace to clear' and adding the isolation guarantee. While it redundantly restates the default value already in the schema, it adds semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete ALL memories for a user.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remember', 'recall', and 'forget' by emphasizing the bulk, all-encompassing scope ('ALL'). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it is a destructive, bulk delete operation scoped to a user namespace, with a default namespace. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'use forget for individual memories'). The usage is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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