delete_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether permissions or confirmation are required, or what happens on a missing id. For a destructive single-target operation this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no wasted words. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive tool with no annotations the description omits the essential behavioral context (permanence, permissions, error behavior). It is not complete enough for an agent to call it safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and 'by id' at least confirms that the single parameter is the identifier of the target memory. It adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond that, leaving the meaning of memory_id largely to the schema's type alone.

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 gives a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a memory') and identifies the target via id, which cleanly separates it from the add_memory and search_memory siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or stating what makes a memory 'stale or wrong', so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'stale or wrong memory' implies the condition under which deletion is appropriate, so usage is implied rather than spelled out. There is no explicit guidance on when not to delete, no mention of an alternative (e.g., updating instead), and no prerequisites.

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