Delete a stored message by its ID to remove obsolete or unwanted memory; this cannot be undone.
Delete one stored message by its id (from remember or list_memories). This cannot be undone.
Args:
memory_id: The id of the message to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memory_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the concrete irreversibility statement ('This cannot be undone'), which is stronger and more actionable than the bare hint, though it doesn't cover no-op behavior when the id is absent (consistent with idempotentHint).
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, front-loaded with the destructive action and the irreversibility warning. The docstring-style 'Args:' block restates the id parameter already implied by the first sentence, a minor redundancy but not bloat.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, input provenance, and irreversibility. Only edge-case behavior (deleting a nonexistent id, error shape) is left implicit.
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 carry the load for the single parameter. It identifies `memory_id` as the message id and where to obtain it, which adds real meaning over the schema's bare 'Memory Id' title, but gives no format or validation details.
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?
Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Delete one stored message by its id'. It also names the sibling tools that produce the id (`remember`, `list_memories`), so an agent can tell this is the deletion counterpart to those creation/listing tools without opening any schema.
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?
It gives clear provenance for the required input ('from `remember` or `list_memories`'), which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming `recall` as the read-only alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.