memvid_delete

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description doesn't repeat, avoiding redundancy. The description adds value by specifying 'a specific frame', implying targeted deletion rather than bulk operations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the frame doesn't exist) or side effects (e.g., impact on related data), which would be helpful given the destructive nature.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete') and resource ('a specific frame'), making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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's complexity (destructive operation with 3 parameters) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output (no schema provided) or error conditions. For a destructive tool, more context on consequences or success indicators would improve completeness, but annotations partially compensate.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'force' parameter's implications or typical use cases for 'frame_id'. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a specific frame'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'memvid_update' or 'memvid_create' by focusing on deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential destructive siblings like 'memvid_unlock' or 'memvid_put', which might also modify data, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing frame), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk deletion), or direct alternatives like 'memvid_put' for updates or 'memvid_create' for additions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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