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 burden. It discloses the irreversible nature ('permanently delete') and the tool's intent for error correction, which is valuable. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or confirmation steps, leaving behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Permanently delete a memory by ID') and uses two concise sentences to provide usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations or output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, guidelines, and behavioral traits like permanence. However, it lacks details on response format or error cases, which could be useful for an agent.

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 the schema already documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high coverage, the baseline is 3. The description's context on when to delete compensates slightly, raising it to 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 clearly states the specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a memory by ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'deprecate_memory' and 'update_memory'. It explicitly contrasts with 'deprecate_memory' for different use cases, making the purpose 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Prefer deprecate_memory for memories that were once true but are no longer. Only delete memories that were created in error or contain incorrect information.' This clearly defines the appropriate context and excludes other scenarios.

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