delete_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it warns of irreversibility ('This action is irreversible'), explains immediate deletion of both row and full-text search index entry, and details return values for both success and failure cases ('Returns {success: true} if found... or {success: false, message: 'Memory not found'} if ID does not exist'). It also states that other memories or session records are unaffected.

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 three sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately conveys the action and scope. Each subsequent sentence adds important detail (irreversibility, usage guidance, return values). Everything is front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, behavioral implications (irreversibility), parameter sourcing, and return values. It is fully complete for this simple tool.

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?

The only parameter 'id' is already described in the input schema ('The UUID of the memory to delete. Obtain from store_memory, search_memory, or list_memories results.'). The tool description reinforces this by mentioning how to obtain the ID. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the extra context in the description (e.g., 'Obtain from...') adds value, justifying a 4.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a single memory from the local SQLite database'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like store_memory, update_memory, or list_memories. The action is 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when a memory is outdated, incorrect, or no longer relevant.' This provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., update_memory for correction), so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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