Delete all memories in scope

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this by labeling the operation 'Destructive'. It adds the behavioral nuance that a scope identifier is mandatory and the default user is never assumed, which is valuable safety context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two short sentences with all key information front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 annotations cover destructive/idempotent behavior and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the bulk deletion action and the main usage caveat. It doesn't specify precedence when multiple scope IDs are passed, but this is a minor omission.

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 has 100% description coverage for the three parameters, but the description adds a critical constraint: at least one of user_id, agent_id, or run_id must be explicitly provided despite all being optional in the schema. This clarifies a potential ambiguity in the input 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'delete' with resource 'every memory' and clarifies scope. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_memory, which targets a single memory.

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 gives a clear usage condition: an explicit user_id, agent_id, or run_id must be provided, and no default user is assumed. This helps agents avoid accidentally wiping the wrong scope, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for single-record deletion.

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