Purger une mémoire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses permanent deletion, required confirmation, and that audit only keeps a redacted trace. It does not mention reversibility (though 'définitivement' implies irreversible) or potential side effects on related memories, but the key destructive behaviors are covered.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then key behavioral constraints. No wasted words; every phrase contributes.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core aspects (permanence, confirm, audit). However, it omits how id selects the target, the purpose/format of reason, and any return/error behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 only 33%, and the description only adds meaning for 'confirm' ('confirmation explicite de la suppression irréversible' is already in schema). The 'id' parameter is implied but not explained, and 'reason' is entirely absent. The description insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Supprime définitivement le contenu d'une mémoire et ses historiques') with scope, and the title 'Purger une mémoire' reinforces the purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like memory_forget, though the emphasis on 'définitivement' and audit redaction implies a distinction.

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 mentions a requirement ('Requiert confirm=true') but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as memory_forget or memory_unsuppress. There are no exclusions or context for appropriate use.

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