memory_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the soft-delete behavior and audit retention. It clearly explains that the entry disappears from results but content is retained, which is critical for an agent to understand side effects.

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 concise with only three sentences, but the Args section is redundant given the input schema already describes the parameter. Removing the Args would improve conciseness without losing information.

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?

The description covers purpose, ownership, and soft-delete behavior. Given the simplicity (one required parameter) and presence of an output schema, it is mostly complete. However, it lacks information on error handling (e.g., invalid entry_id) or response format.

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?

The description's Args section repeats the schema's description of entry_id exactly ('The UUID of the entry to delete'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new information about the parameter, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 a memory entry', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_get, memory_update, etc., by indicating the delete action. The ownership constraint adds clarity.

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?

It explicitly states 'Only the entry's owner can delete it', providing a usage prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the sibling context implies deletion is distinct from other operations.

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