memory_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a key but doesn't mention what happens if the key doesn't exist (e.g., error, silent failure), whether the deletion is permanent, any permission requirements, or rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance without unnecessary elaboration.

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 1 parameter), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. With no annotations and an output schema present (which likely describes the return value), the description doesn't need to explain returns. However, it lacks critical behavioral details for a delete operation, such as error handling or side effects, leaving gaps in understanding.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'key' parameter ('Nombre de la clave a eliminar'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't elaborate on key format, constraints, or examples, relying entirely on the 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 clearly states the action ('Elimina' - deletes) and the resource ('una clave de la memoria persistente' - a key from persistent memory). It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_get (retrieve) and memory_set (store), though it doesn't explicitly mention sibling differentiation. The purpose is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the key must exist), when not to use it, or how it differs from memory_clear (which likely clears all keys). The description assumes context but offers no explicit usage instructions.

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