memory_set_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—'audit row kept'—indicating that the operation retains history. It also specifies the return object. However, it does not cover permissions, error cases, or reversibility, which keeps it below a 5.

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 two concise sentences plus a return line, with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 tool is simple, but with zero schema descriptions, the description is expected to define parameters. It doesn't fully do so, though it covers the core behavior, audit note, and return structure. Gaps remain in parameter semantics and edge-case behavior.

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?

Input schema has 0% coverage and no descriptions for entity, attribute, or member. The tool description mentions these fields only in the return object, not their meanings or constraints. It does not compensate for the schema gap beyond the self-explanatory parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retract' and identifies the resource as 'set member', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_set_add. It also adds the audit note and points to a complementary read tool, 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 phrase 'Read with memory_fact_get' provides a clear usage hint for a complementary read operation, giving context for when to follow up. However, it does not explicitly contrast with memory_set_add or other set operations, so no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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