memory_set_remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description nonetheless adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — '(audit row kept)' — telling the agent this is a soft retraction with a preserved audit trail rather than an erasure, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded and very tight; the destructive behavior and the read-path pointer come first. The trailing 'Returns: {...}' line is redundant given that an output schema exists, which costs it a perfect score but not much else.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it mutates, that the audit trail survives, and how to verify. It is silent on failure behavior when the member is absent, but that gap is minor given the structured data available.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the description need not restate them. It adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond 'the current member to retract,' which is already implied by the schema text; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Retract one current set member.' The parenthetical clarifies the scope (single member) and the audit semantics, so an agent can distinguish this from memory_set_add or memory_forget without opening the schema. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings.

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?

'Read with memory_fact_get' gives one concrete follow-up action, which is useful routing guidance. But there is no statement of when to use this versus memory_set_add, memory_supersede, or memory_forget, so the selection guidance remains implicit.

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