memora

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, there is no information about whether deletions are permanent, reversible, atomic (all-or-nothing), or if there are cascade effects on related memories. The existence of an output schema is noted in context signals, but the description doesn't hint at what behavioral information it contains.

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 with no redundant words. However, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness given the complexity of batch destructive operations.

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?

Inadequate for a destructive batch operation. Missing: safety warnings about data loss, distinction from memory_delete, batch size limitations, and error handling semantics. While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description fails to address the higher risk profile of batch deletion compared to read operations.

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% (only title 'Ids' present). The description adds minimal compensation by confirming the parameter represents 'id' values, but fails to specify constraints like maximum batch size, whether invalid IDs cause partial failure or full rejection, or the integer format expected.

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 (Delete), resource (memories), and method (by id). The inclusion of 'multiple' helps distinguish it from the singular sibling tool memory_delete, though it could explicitly mention the batch nature or contrast with the single-delete alternative.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus memory_delete or other alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, batch size limits, or conditions where batch deletion is preferred over individual deletions.

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