memory_set_remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: '(audit row kept)' discloses soft-delete/retention semantics, telling the agent the retraction is recoverable and auditable. It does not address idempotency (idempotentHint=false) or what happens on a repeated call.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the operation and its audit behavior come first. The 'Returns: {...}' line is largely redundant since an output schema exists, which is the only wasted space.

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 with annotations and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, retention semantics, and the read path. Gaps are minor: no idempotency note and no statement of what happens when the member is not currently present.

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 100%, so entity/attribute/member are already documented. The phrase 'current set member' adds a mild constraint that the member must be currently present, but no format or error semantics 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Retract one current set member'. The word 'Retract' contrasts implicitly with the sibling memory_set_add, and 'one' bounds the operation. It stops short of naming the add/supersede alternatives outright, so the sibling contrast must be inferred.

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 only routing guidance is 'Read with memory_fact_get', which points at the read path but does not say when to retract vs. using memory_supersede, memory_forget, or memory_fact_resolve. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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