memory_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals it is a soft-delete (content retained for audit), which is critical behavioral context. It also mentions owner-only restriction, adding significant transparency.

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?

Four concise sentences: purpose, ownership, soft-delete behavior, parameter. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 one-parameter delete tool with output schema, this description covers purpose, ownership, and side effects. It might lack error behavior (e.g., if entry not found or not owner), but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity. Nearly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Args' section duplicates the schema description without adding extra meaning (e.g., format, constraints, or examples). No added value beyond the schema.

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' with a specific verb and resource. It stands out among siblings like memory_update and memory_write, and adds the ownership constraint, 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 for deleting memories but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., memory_update for modification) or state when not to use it. The prerequisite (owner only) is given, but no whether to use at all.

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