Delete a memory by its ID to erase outdated or incorrect information. Use this when a stored fact is no longer accurate and must be permanently removed.
Delete a memory by ID. Memories are never automatically deleted — use this for outdated or incorrect information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memoryId | Yes | The ID of the memory to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context that deletion is never automatic, but it does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens to linked memories, or whether any confirmation is involved. For a simple delete operation this is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence justifies the tool's existence by explaining why manual deletion may be necessary. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the action, the target, and the typical use case. A minor gap is that it does not mention what happens after deletion or whether the operation is reversible, but those are not essential for invoking this tool correctly.
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%, and the only parameter, memoryId, is already clearly documented as 'The ID of the memory to delete.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a precise action ('Delete a memory by ID') with a clear resource and method. It is unequivocally distinct from sibling tools like memory_add, memory_search, and memory_list, so an agent can immediately identify this as the deletion operation.
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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: for outdated or incorrect information. It also notes that memories are never automatically deleted, which implies this is the manual cleanup mechanism. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling set makes the distinction obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.