memory_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a destructive action ('delete') but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or error behavior. Basic transparency is achieved but not enriched beyond the minimal.

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, complete sentence that efficiently conveys all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant or superfluous words.

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 required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the core usage. It explains what to delete and how to obtain the identifier. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of case when id doesn't exist), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 add meaning. It explains that the 'id' parameter is 'as returned by memory_store/memory_find', which provides crucial sourcing context beyond the schema's 'Id' title. This sufficiently compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the verb 'delete' and the resource 'a stored fact', specifying the identification method via 'id'. It also clarifies the provenance of the id by referencing memory_store/memory_find, making the purpose 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 implies usage when one wants to delete a stored fact and has its id. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., if id is missing) and does not compare to sibling tools like memory_ingest or memory_store.

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